dismissed EB-1A Case: Communications

(b)(6)
DATE: APR t 4 2015 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland �ecurity 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appea� or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements . 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
�(� t-
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, 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 professor of 
communications, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 11 53(b)(l)(A), which makes visas available to aliens 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 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)(ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (viii). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the 
director that the petitioner has not established his 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 or her sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her 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 a petitioner 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. 2010) 
(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. Wikipedia Materials 
In support of his petition, the petitioner has submitted a number of online printouts from Wikipedia. 
For example, the petitioner has submitted Wikipedia materials relating to publications, individuals, 
languages, and companies and institutions where he has worked. As there are no assurances about 
the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited Internet site, the materials from Wikipedia 
have no evidentiary weight.1 See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008). 
Accordingly, the petitioner may not rely on Wikipedia materials to establish his eligibility. 
1 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer entitled "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO 
GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY": 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
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 exc ellence 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 asserted that he meets this 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 47118�5 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 
2011) (the United States District Court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal). Moreover, the evidence does not establish that the awards the petitioner has 
received, including awards from are either nationally or internationally 
recognized. The petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that individuals not associated with 
the issuing entities recognized the awards or that any nationally or internationally circulated 
publications covered the selection of awardees for these awards. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
presented documentation of his 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). 
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 February 24, 2015, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
2 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner asserts 
he meets or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
Documentation of the alien's members�ip lri, 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because he is a lifetime member of the 
global chapter and an associate member in 
The evidence in the record does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. First, the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that he is a lifetime member of the 
chapter. Rather, the evidence, including a June 4, 2013 letter from Vice 
President of the , shows that the petitioner is a 
member of Mr. letter provides that the petitioner "will begin receiving 
information about activities as well as invitations from different social and political 
organizations for [his] consideration, [he] can also count on to work together to obtain 
any services [he] need[s] for [his] professional work." The evidence shows that the organization 
provides networking services. In his second letter, dated November 12, 2()13, Mr. 
indicates that the petitioner is a member of but does not state that he is a lifetime 
member of the _ chapter, as the petitioner asserts on appeal. According to online printouts 
from there are seven membership categories. Lifetime membership is not listed as one 
of the categories. 
Moreover, the online printout, entitled "How to Apply for Membership," lists the seven membership 
categories, but does not state that requires outstanding achievements from its members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. Although the 
petitioner has submitted a letter from Mr. stating the specific reasons that 
admitted the petitioner as a member, at issue is whether the organization requires "outstanding 
achievements" from its members, not the specific reasons why the organization has admitted the 
petitioner. Mr. asserts that one of the reasons why admitted the petitioner as a 
member is that the petitioner is an individual who has contributed to international news media. This 
accomplishment, however, is not listed as a membership requirement in the organization's online 
printouts. The seven categories include regular members, those whose principal means of support is 
earned in gathering, editing •· or presenting the news, and academic members, those 'Yho work as 
educators of journalism at institutions of higher learning. The remaining· categories, such as 
associate and student, require even less achievements in the field. Accordingly, the petitioner has 
not established that requires outstanding achievements for any membership level. 
In addition, the petitioner has not shown that the membership �ommittee, which approved the 
petitioner's membership, consists of recognized national or international experts in their disciplines 
or fields, as required under the plain language of the criterion. As such, the petitioner has not shown 
that his membership in meets this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that requires outstanding achievements from its 
members, as required by the plain language of the criterion. The petitioner has submitted a 
certificate stating that he is an associate member in The certificate further states that the 
petitioner has "successfully met requirements as an Associate Member 
for the supervision of doctoral and research masters candidates." According to an undated 
letter from Professor Pro Vice Chancellor (Research and Research Training), 
membership depends on: . 
• Ongoing attainment of"a ctive research status for the purposes ofHDR supervision"; 
• Satisfactory completion of the appropriate Supervisor Accreditation Training modules. 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted online printouts 
from relating to membership requirements and the petitioner's certificates of 
training completion. These documents show that to become and remain an member, 
university staff applicants for membership and external supervisors for associate membership must 
show they: 
• are active in a research field, as defined by [the) faculty-specific research criteria, 
• have either guided a candidate through to successful completion or successfully completed at 
least level one of [the] supervisor training program, [and] 
• maintain a consistently high standard of supervision of research candidates. 
The petitioner has not shown that these requirements- which require an applicant or a member to be 
active in a field, to have completed certain training requirements and to perform his supervisory 
duties that meet the requisite standard - constitute "outstanding achievements ... , as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields." The online printouts do 
not define what constitutes "a consistently high standard of supervision." The petitioner has not 
shown that "a consistently high standard of supervision" constitutes "outstanding achievements" or 
that recognized national or international experts are the ones who judge whether an applicant or a 
member meets the "consistently high standard. " As such, the petitioner has not shown that his 
associate membership in meets this criterion. 
Finally, in support of his petition, the petitioner asserts that his membership on editorial boards of 
and an invitation to become a 
member of the editorial board 
constitute evidence that he meets this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner has not continued to make 
this assertion. As such, the petitioner has abandoned these issues, as he did not timely raise them on 
appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. Regardless, the record 
does not establish that these editorial boards are associations that admit members. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of his membership in associations in the 
field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. The petitioner 
has not shown that he meets this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion based on a November 26, 2011 article in 
the and an October 27, 2011 article in While the petitioner is persuasive 
on appeal that major media publications in India include English language publications, the evidence 
does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
First, the petitioner has not shown that the November 26, 2011 article appeared in a professional or 
major trade publication or major media. The article is entitled ' and 
appeared in the Global Citizen Section of the The article discusses 
the petitioner's receipt of the best teacher award at The 
petitioner has submitted online printouts about the stating that the 
has a circulation of 1.45 million copies a day in India. The printouts also state that the 
is one of the top 10 English dailies and ranks 25th by readership in India. The 
petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that the and the· 
are one and the same. The record lacks information relating to the 
which is the publication th at pub lished 
In addition, assuming the two publications are one and the same, the petitioner has not shown 
whether the article ' was pub lished in India or in an edition published 
outside of India. Specifically, as the petitioner has submitted only the circulation information of the 
in India, the circulation information is relevant only if the petitioner also shows 
that the article was published in India. The petitioner has not made such a showing. Indeed, the 
petitioner states on appeal that the has at least one edition 1 published 
outside of India. The record, however, lacks evidence relating to the circulation of the publication 
outside of India. The petitioner has not submitted evidence relating to the publication's internati onal 
edition showing that it constitutes major media in the county where the international edition is 
published. 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that the October 27, 2011 article meets this criterion. The 
petitioner has submitted an October 27, 2011 _ article entitled 
" The article, which lists no author, appears to be promotional material for 
which contains quotes from the petitioner discussing a university program. The material, 
however, is not about the petitioner, relating to his work. In fact, in the cover letter supporting the 
initial filing, the petitioner lists the evidence as·: "Article 
interviewing [the petitioner] about Journalism in· '' (Emphasis addetl.) As such, 
the petitioner has not shown that the article is about him, relating to his work. 
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Moreover, the petitioner has not submitted evidence relating to that establishes the 
publication is a professional or major trade publication or major media. The record includes 
information relating to a publication named but not The petitioner has not 
presented evidence showing that these two publications are one and the same. In addition, as stated 
above, does not include information on the author of the 
material, as required under the plain language of the criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted published material about him in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media, relating to his work in the field for which classification is 
sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the alien's participation, ei ther individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classij[cation is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record supports this 
conclusion. For example, the evidence shows that the petitioner served as an editor for 
and served as a thesis advisor and evaluator for the Master of Arts Communication Arts Degree at 
Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted evidence of his 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv ). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific. schol arly , 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 he has met this criterion because he has submitted copyright 
contracts and agreements for the commercial and business application of his research and writing. 
The petitioner also states that the record includes reference letters that establish that he meets this 
criterion. 
In response to. the director's RFE, the p etitione r submitted documents showing that he has entered 
into a number of copyright, distribution and publishing agreements with publishers who have 
published his writings. On appeal, the pe ti tione r asserts that these agreements show that he "has 
contracts with others implementing his work pro duct." The petitioner does not elaborate on how 
· these contracts show others implementing his work. The agreements and contracts relate to the 
publication of his work and they show that publishers consider the petitioner's work worthy of 
publishing. The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published 
articles.· 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be 
presumed that the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from 
scholarly articles. Publication and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 
F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In Kazarian, the court 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
· Page 9 
reaffirmed its holding that our adverse finding under this criterion was not an abuse of discretion. 
596 F. 3d at 1122. 
Typically, in considering whether a published work is a contribution of major significance, we look 
at the impact the work has had after publication. The petitioner has not submitted evidence showing 
what impact the petitioner's writings have had in the field or that the impact rises to the level of 
contribution of major significance in the field, such that the petitioner's work fundamentally changed 
or significantly advanced the field as a whole. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. For 
example, the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that others in the field have widely cited 
or relied on his work in their own writing or work. Although the record includes evidence of the 
impact factor of certain publications that have published the petitioner's work, at issue is the impact 
of the petitioner's work in the field, not the impact of the publications that published the petitioner's 
work. The petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that all articles in the same publication 
have the same level of impact in the field or that his articles have garnered a significant number of 
citations. The petitioner submitted evidence that one of the journals for which the petitioner serves 
as editor, "is indexed and cited in 15 international database, citation and 
indexing agencies." This document does not demonstrate that members of the petitioner's field have 
cited his published articles. The petitioner also submitted a search for his name in Google.Scholar, 
but the results reflect mostly articles the petitioner himself authored, which do not indicate that there 
are any citations for those articles. As the petitioner searched for his name without quotation marks, 
the petitioner has not established that the one article and one book he did not author within the 
results reference him, although the excerpt reproduced from one of those items suggests that the 
author did cite the petitioner. Regardless, the petitioner has not established that two citations 
demonstrate that he is cited to a degree consistent with a contribution of major significance. 
Notably, according to the Google.Scholar results the petitioner submitted, the book that may cite the 
petitioner has itself garnered 22 citations. 
The record also includes a number of reference letters from his students and colleagues that provide 
general praise of the petitioner's publication history, teaching abilities, competence and personal 
character. For example, according to Provost and Chief Academic Officer, 
the petitioner has a "rich experience in the fiel4 of higher education, teaching 
and research" and that he "is an extremely. poised and effective communicator who excels 
academically." Dr. asserts that the petitioner's research and academic contributions "will" 
benefit the media community. This assertion does not establish that the petitioner has already made 
a contribution of major significance .. Dr. assertions relating to the petitioner's contributions 
to the university will be discussed below as they relate to the significance of the role the petitioner 
has performed for the university. 
Ph.D. , Head and Senior Lecturer, Department of Mass 
Communication, states that the petitioner is a "knowledgeable, 
committed and enthusiastic lecturer who gives his best in all endeavors that he undertakes." Dr. 
Chairman and Head of the Centre for Virtual Media, 
states that the petitioner is "very studious, hardworking, enterprising and dedicated. His conduct and 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
character are good. [He] is well versed in Mass Communication, Journalism, Media studies, Film 
and Television." Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Department of 
Humanities and Social Sciences, states that the petitioner is 
"an engaging and popular teacher," "a very critically engaging researcher, willing to look at the 
media's transformative potential from within a social context," has "deep academic interest," and 
has "admirable" personal qualities. Lecturer at the Department of 
Communications and Journalism, states that the petitioner's "knowledge in 
Communication, Journalism, Media Studies, Film and Television is really good." Dr. 
Associate Professor and Head of School (Education), School of Arts and Social Sciences, 
states that the petitioner "is a committed teacher, passionate 
about teaching communication and journalism, and very helpful to students, both in class and outside 
class." 
Dr. Course Coordinator, Department of Advertising Management and Public 
Relations, of Science and Technology, states that the petitioner 
"belongs to the exceptionally sound breed of technology savvy media teachers who has successfully 
demonstrated his teaching ability in his parent university and far and wide in Malaysia and 
Australia." While Dr. asserts that he personally benefitted from the petitioner, resulting in Dr. 
resolution to work jointly with the petitioner, Dr. does not elaborate on the petitioner's 
influence on Dr. own work. 
Lecturer of Communication, School of Arts and Social Sciences, 
states that the petitioner "takes great pride in his teaching role, 
preparing extremely comprehensive lecture materials and spends a great deal of time training 
students in the theoretical and practical aspects of the journalism profession." Dr. mentions 
a joint project with the petitioner and praises his networking skills, but does not explain the nature or 
impact of this project. 
Although the petitioner's references provide general praise ofthe petitioner, they do not provide any 
specific example of what the petitioner has done that is original, such that he is the first person or 
one of the first people to have done it, or that what he has done is of major significance to the field, 
such that the petitioner's work has fundamentally changed or significantly advanced the field of 
education as a whole. Some of the petitioner's work, such as his development of certain academic 
programs as discussed by Dr. might have impacted his former or current employers. To meet 
this criterion, however, the petitioner must show impact in the field as a whole. Simply performing 
duties associated with one's occupation for the benefit of one's employer is not, without a wider 
influence in the field, a contribution of major significance in the field. Regardless of the field, the 
plain language of the phrase "contributions of major 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). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
The petitioner has also submitted evidence of his presentations at conferences. For example, 
according to Associate Provost, the petitioner presented 
his research paper at "the 
' which has a 17 percent acceptance rate ot 
research papers. To show that the petitioner has made contributions of major significance in the 
field, the petitioner must establish the impact of his work after its dissemination in the field. Being 
selected to present at a conference or publish an article in a publication is evidence of the petitioner's 
dissemination of his work. The petitioner must then show the impact of his work in the field after 
dissemination and must show that the impact rises to the level of major significance in the field as a 
whole. The petitioner has not made such a showing. 
· 
Some of the reference letters include conclusory statements that are not supported by evidence in the 
record. For example, according to Mr. the petitioner "is widely cited and refereed [sic] by 
leading scholars in the field." Neither Mr. nor the petitioner, however, has provided 
information relating to the citation of or reliance on the petitioner's work and the petitioner did not 
submit evidence that substantiates Mr. assertion that the petitioner is widely cited and 
referenced. As discussed above, the evidence relating to citations does not, in fact, demonstrate 
more than a very small number of citations. Simila rly, according to Dr. Assistant 
Professor, Communication and New Media, the petitioner "has 
been noted for his innovative teaching, for his ability to combine practical and theoretical orientation 
in his pedagogy and for enriching curriculum through prioritization of institutional interests that help 
improve students [sic] overall capabilities and competencies." Neither Dr. nor the 
petitioner has identified what aspects of the petitioner's teaching methods are original, or shown that 
the petitioner's teaching methods constitute contributions of major significance in the field as a 
whole, such as evidence of a wide adoption of his methods in the field. Dr. further states 
that the petitioner's work "is both important and relevant" and that Dr. has "personally 
benefited from reading [the petitioner's] research on new media in India." Dr. does not 
explain how he has benefited from the petitioner's work, or state that he has either cited or relied on 
the petitioner's work in his own writing or research. 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 of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Vague letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. 3 Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 
1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115 . The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and 
have been considered above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
3 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 12 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition 
is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may
' 
as this decision has done above, evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also 
Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not 
purport to be evidence as to "fact"). users may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 
190); See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 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 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record supports this 
conclusion. The petitioner has presented evidence showing his authorship of a number of articles, 
including: (1) 
(2)' 
published in the 
' published in the 
(3) 
published in the Accordingly, the petitioner has presented evidence of his 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. The petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because of his role at 
the School of Arts and Sciences at 
and because of his role as the chief editor of The petitioner has not shown that he 
meets this criterion. 
First, although the petitioner shows that he hCJ.S performed a leading and critical role for 
he has not shown that the university has a distinguished reputation. According to Dr. 
the petitioner "leads [the] master's degree program in Communication Arts ... as the 
Graduate Coordinator" at He is "responsible in designing and introducing 
new courses for the Communication and Media Program at the Institute of Communication, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
Entertainment and Media." Dr. states that the petitioner is "an invaluable asset to the 
According to Dr. _ the petitioner is the Graduate Coordinator, 
"headfingl and leadfing thel Master's Program in Communication Arts" and is a member of the 
that is "committed to advisement, retention and 
states that the petitioner set up an internship program for matriculation of students." Dr. 
students at the that "greatly helped many of 
the undergraduate students . . . to get more professional exposure and high employment 
opportunities." According to Ph.D., Professor and Director the 
the petitioner has "added to the 
academic prestige" of the 
by helping faculty and students to publish their research in journals. In a separate letter, 
dated December 9, 2013, Dr. states that the petitioner "is undoubtedly one of the inevitable 
leaders and the most essential faculty Professors" in the 
According to Dr. Assistant Professor, 
, the petitioner demonstrated leadership in student recruitment by creating 
marketing material and recruitment activities, which resulted in a fourfold increase in the number of 
student enrolled in his program. The evidence in the record shows that the petitioner performs a 
leading or c-ritical role for 
The petitioner, however, has not shown that has a distinguished reputation. 
According to Dr. _ November 22, 2013 letter, is a not-for-profit 
Catholic institute of higher learning. According to an online printout from College Compass, U.S. 
News, ranks 62 in the category of Regional Universities (South). The 
printout states that the school "is less selective, with an acceptance rate of 45.7 percent." The 
petitioner has not shown that the evidence in the record establishes that is an 
organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation, as required under the plain · 
language of the criterion. 
Second, although the petitioner has shown that he performed a leading or critical role for 
in Malaysia, he has not shown that 
is an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. According to a 
November 18, 2013 letter from Ph.D., Adjunct Professor and Former Head, School of 
Arts and Social Sciences, the petitioner was "[i]nstrumental in 
launching [a] Journalism Major for [an] Undergraduate Degree for the first time by an 
campus in Malaysia" and increased the number of students in the program from nine to 
52 in three years. Dr. states that while at the petitioner 
launched an internship program, established an audio visual lab and studio and served as the 
coordinator for the school orientation program. According to Dr. the petitioner "has been 
especially helpful as the School representative on the Campus library committee and importantly as 
the Transition Coordinator responsible for executing the School's Transition Programme for new 
students making the transition from pre-university to university-level studies." According to Dr. 
the petitioner "has been influential in improving the resources provided to [the] students 
via his role on the campus-wide Library and Learning Commons Committee and has taken a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14. 
leadership role in [the] school's summ er internship unit." The evidence in the record shows that the 
petitioner performed a leading or critical role for 
The petitioner, however, has not shown that 
_ 
distinguished reputation. Specifically, the petitioner has not shown that 
where he had worked, shares the same reputation as 
evidence shows that the is one of multiple 
campuses. The petitioner has not shown that 
has a 
Sunway 
in Australia. The 
international 
are one and the same, such that they share the same reputation and prestige. Assuming 
arguendo that r in Australia are one and 
the same, the evidence in the record is insufficient to show that has a 
distinguished reputation. According to an online printout entitled ' 
had a score of 73.70 and ranked 69 in a 2013 world university ranking. The petitioner 
has not provided information relating to how the score and rank are determined or the accuracy of 
the information contained in the printout. The petitioner has also submitted online printouts from 
stating that the university is among the top one percent of world universities and 
has been ranked as one of the top 100 universities in the world. These online printouts constitute 
self-promotional evidence and have minimal evidentiary value. See Braga v. Poulos, 2007 WL 
9229758, at *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-promotional evidence with more 
independent evidence, such as, but not limited to, independent journalistic coverage of the 
university's reputation, prestige or standing in internationally or nationally circulated publications. 
Third, although the petitioner has shown that he performed a leading or critical role for the 
Department of Communication and Journalism at he has not shown 
that the Department is an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. Dr. 
Professor and Director, School of Social · Sciences, 
provided two letters in support of the petition. In his first letter, dated May 20, 2013, Dr. 
discusses the petitioner's study as a student and work as a faculty member at 
Dr. concludes his letter with "I highly recommend him for 
employment with your organization." In his second letter. dated November 20, 2013, Dr. 
provides similar information. In addition, Dr. states that the petitioner 
was "instrumental in conceptualizing and beginning [our] Masters Degree Program in 
Communication and Journalism," was the "Chair and the Coordinator for the three days long 
was a member of the "syllabus and 
curriculum revision committee," and was "the Chairman for the Board of Examination for the 
Masters Degree in Communication & Journalism, Master Degree in Film and Television Studies, 
Bachelors Degree in Communication Arts, Bachelors Degree in Virtual Media." The evidence in the 
record shows that the petitioner performed a leading or critical role for the Department of 
Communication and Journalism at 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
The petitioner. however. has not shown. that the Department of Communication and Journalism at 
has a distinguished reputation independent of the University. The 
petitioner has submitted letters from individuals who worked for or studied at the 
however, the petitioner has not submitted evidence relating to the reputation or prestige 
of the university, or more specifically, the university's Department of Communication and 
Journalism. The plain language of the criterion requires the petitioner to show he has performed a 
leading or critical role for "organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation." 
The petitioner has not made such a showing as relating to the Department of Communication and 
Journalism at 
Fourth, although the petitioner has shown that his role as the Editor-in-Chief for 
constitutes a leading or critical role, the petitioner has not shown that is an 
organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. According to online printouts from 
and information printed in the publication, is an international research 
journal on communication and media. The petitioner has not submitted information relating to the 
publication's recognition or impact in the field, or evidence that individuals not associated with the 
publication consider the publication to have a distinguished reputation. The evidence submitted · to 
show the reputation of the publication is from the publication itself or individuals associated with the 
publication. Such self-promotional evidence has minimal evidentiary value. See Braga, 2007 WL 
9229758, at *7 . The petitioner has not supported the self-promotional evidence with more 
independent evidence demonstrating the publication's reputation or prestige in the field. 
On appeal, counsel assets that is "listed in 
' The petitioner, however, has not submitted 
evidence showing that these services list only publications that have a distinguished reputation. On 
appeal, counsel also asserts that "is one of the highest impact and cited research 
journals in the discipline of Communication, Journalism and Media," but the petitioner has 
submitted no evidence to substantiate this assertion. Without documentary evidence to support the 
assertions, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Finally, the petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of this criterion, including 
evidence relating to his editorial role in other publications, such as 
On appeal, the petitioner has not continued to assert that he meets this criterion based 
on this evidence. Accordingly, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it 
on ap peal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 471 1885 at *9. In addition, the 
petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence showing that the publications have a distinguished· 
reputation. Moreover, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence relating to the duties he 
has as an editor, the number of editors or how an editor fits within the hierarchy of each publication. 
Notably, the petitioner has not shown that every editor in every publication performs either a leading 
or critical role for the publication, as a whole. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as . shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the copyright, distribution and publishing agreements with 
publishers that the petitioner has executed constitute evidence that he meets this criterion. The 
petitioner, however, has not established that this criterion applies to him, as he is an educator, and 
the criterion specifically refers to commercial success in the performing arts. 
Moreover, the petitioner has not shown that the agreements constitute comparable evidence that 
establishes his eligibility under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). The regulation provides: 
"If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may 
submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility." The agreements do not 
provide information relating to compensation that the petitioner has received for his work or 
writings. The petitioner has also not submitted evidence relating to what constitutes commercial 
success, i.e., the level of COIJ!.pensation that makes one's work a commercial success, in the 
petitioner's field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of commercial successes in the performing 
arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). The petitioner has also not submitted 
comparable evidence to establish his eligibility. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), 
C. Summary 
The evidence in the record - including evidence showing that the petitioner is a prolific author and a 
successful lecturer and professor - does not establish the petitioner's eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. We have considered all the evidence in the record, including evidence not 
specifically mentioned above, and for the reasons discussed above, we agree with the director's 
finding that the petitioner has not submitted the requisite initial evidence, in this case, 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 alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
(b)(6)
\ 
NON-f-JRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
Had the pe t it io ner su bmi tted the requ iSite ev idence under at lea st thre e ev ident iary categories, in 
acco rdance with the Kazarian op i nion, the next step wo ul d be a fi nal me rit s determi nation that 
co nsider s a!! of the e v ide nce in the context of w hether or not the pe tit ioner has demonstra ted: (1) a 
"le vel of ex pertise indic ati ng that the indi vidual is one or th at smal l pe rcentage who have risen to the 
very top of the ti eld of endeavor," and (2) "that the al i en has susta in ed national or in ternational 
acc l aim and that his or her achi evements have been recog niz ed in the field of exper ti se . · ' 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204 .5 (h)(2) and (3); see al so Kazari an, 5% F.3d at 111 9-20 . As the pet iti oner has not done so, the 
pr oper con cl usion is that the pe titioner has failed to sati sfy the ante c edent regu lat ory requ irement of 
p resent ing evide nce that sat isfied the init ial ev idence req ui re ments se t forth at 8 C.F.R � 204.5 (h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 112 2. Nev ert he le ss, alt h ou gh we nee d not pr ovide the type of final 
merits deter mina tion refe renced in Kazaria n, a review of the ev idence in the aggregate su ppo rts a 
finding that the pe t itioner has not demons tra ted the le vel of exp ertise req u ired for t he clas sif ication 
sough t. 4 
The app eal will be dismi ssed for the above stated reasons, wit h each consid ered as an in dep en dent 
and altern ate basis for the decision. In vis a pet it ion proceed in gs. it is the petition er' s bu rden to 
esta bl ish el igibi lit y for the imm igrat ion ben efit sough t. Secti on 29 1 of the Act, 8 U. S.C. § 1361; 
Matter of OLiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (B IA 20 13). Here, th at bu rden has n o t been met 
ORD ER: The appeal is dis m isse d. 
4 We mai ntain de 110\ '() review of all ques tions or !'au and law. See Solwne , .. LJniled StaLes Dep 't oj'Juslice, 38 1 F.3d 
14 3, 14 '1 (3d Cir. 2004). In any l'utur c procee din g, we maintain the ju risdict il )n to conduct <I final merits dc tcnninati.on as 
the office that m;;tcle th e lasl decis ion in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 10 3. 5(a)( J) (ii); see also lNA !$!$ 103(a)( l), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Num ber 0150 1 (el'Jcctive March 1, 2003): 8 C. F.R. * 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § Hl3 .](f )(3)(iii) (200J ); Matter of 
Au relio, 19 l&N Dec. 4'18, 460 (BIA 19 87) (h oldi ng th<tt legacy INS, now USClS , is Jh c so k: au thor ity with the 
jur isdiction to decide visa petitions).