dismissed EB-1A Case: Dance

U.S.Department of HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationservices
AdministrativeAppealsoffice (AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: DE[' 2 1 2012 Office: NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlienof ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson FormI-290B,Notice of Appealor Motion,with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within
30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:TheDirector,NebraskaServiceCenter,deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationasan"alienof extraordinaryability" in theartsasa dancer,pursuant
tosection203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct,8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A).Thedirector
determinedthepetitionerhadnotestablishedthesustainednationalor internationalacclaimnecessaryto
qualifyforclassificationasanalienof extraordinaryability.
Congressseta veryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of thealien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct and
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a
major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,theregulationoutlines
tencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). Thepetitionermust
submitqualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establish
thebasiceligibility requirements.
Thepetitioner'sprioritydateestablishedby thepetitionfiling dateis February29,2012.OnMarch7,
2012,the directorservedthe petitionerwith a requestfor evidence(RFE). After receivingthe
petitioner'sresponseto theRFE,thedirectorissuedhis decisiononJune12,2012. On appeal,the
petitionersubmitsabriefwith additionaldocumentaryevidence.Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,the
AAO upholdsthedirector'sultimatedeterminationthatthepetitionerhasnot establishedhereligibility
fortheclassificationsought.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1)Priorityworkers.-- Visasshallfirstbemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.-- An alienis describedin thissubparagraphif --
(i) thealienhasextraordinaryability in thesciences,arts,education,business,or
athleticswhich has been demonstratedby sustainednational or international
acclaimand whoseachievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field through
extensivedocumentation,
(ii) the alienseeksto enterthe UnitedStatesto continuework in the areaof
extraordinaryability,and
Page3
(iii) thealien'sentryinto theUnitedStateswill substantiallybenefitprospectively
theUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very high standardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasas aliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723 101stCong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29,1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefieldof endeavor.Id.;
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien'ssustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof his or herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof aone-timeachievement(thatis, amajor,internationalrecognizedaward)or
throughthesubmissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof thetencategoriesof evidence
listedat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof apetition
filedunderthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).Althoughthecourt
upheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's evaluationof
evidencesubmittedto meeta given evidentiarycriterion.1 With respectto the criteriaat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhileUSCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin asubsequent"finalmeritsdetermination."Id. at1121-22.
The courtstatedthatthe AAO's evaluationrestedon an improperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceaspartof the initial inquiry,the courtstatedthat"the
properprocedureisto countthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAO did)," andif thepetitioner
failedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(astheAAO concluded)."Id. at 1122(citingto
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazariansetsforthatwo-partapproachwheretheevidenceis firstcountedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof a finalmeritsdetermination.In thismatter,theAAOwill reviewtheevidenceunder
theplainlanguagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed.As thepetitionerdidnotsubmitqualifying
evidenceunderatleastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
Specifically,the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterallyimposednovel substantiveor evidentiary
requirementsbeyond those set forth in the regulationsat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iv)and 8C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
II. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentationof the alien's receiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor
awardsfor excellencein theßeldofendeavor.
The petitionerprovidedevidencethat shereceiveda NationalScholarshipfor YoungArtists. The
directoracknowledgedthatthepetitionerwastherecipientof ascholarshipawardsubmittedunderthe
regulationat 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i),but concludedthatthescholarshipfailedto satisfytheplain
languagerequirementsof thiscriterionasit wasnotanationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizeor
anawardfor excellencein thefieldof endeavor.In reachingthisconclusion,thedirectornotedthatit
wasissuedto studentsearlyin theircareersandexcludedestablishedprofessionals.On appeal,the
petitionerdoesnot contestthedirector'sfindingsfor this criterionor offer additionalarguments.The
AAO, therefore,considersthisissueto beabandoned.Sepulvedav. U.S.Att'y Gen.,401F.3d1226,
1228n. 2 (11thCir. 2005);Hristovv. Roark,No. 09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at *1, 9
(E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,2011)(thecourtfoundtheplaintiff's claimsto beabandonedashefailedto raise
themonappealtotheAAO).
Publishedmaterialaboutthe alien in professionalor major tradepublicationsor othermajor
media,relatingto thealien'swork in thefield for whichclassificationis sought. Suchevidence
shallincludethetitle,date,andauthorof thematerial,andanynecessarytranslation.
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionermettherequirementsof thiscriterion. TheAAO affirmsthe
director'sdeterminationasit relatestothiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor on a panel,asa judge of theworkof
othersin thesameor analliedßeldofspecißcationfor whichclassißcationissought.
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionermettherequirementsof thiscriterion.TheAAO affirmsthe
director'sdeterminationasit relatesto thiscriterion.
Evidenceof the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributionsofmajorsignißcancein theßeld.
Theplainlanguageof thisregulatorycriterioncontainsmultipleevidentiaryelementsthatthepetitioner
mustsatisfy.Thefirst is evidenceof thepetitioner'scontributions(in theplural)in herfield. These
contributionsmusthavealreadybeenrealizedratherthanbeingpotential,futurecontributions.The
petitionermustalsodemonstratethathercontributionsareoriginal. Theevidencemustestablishthat
thecontributionsarescientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-relatedin nature. Thefinal
2Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimto meetor submitevidencerelatingto theregulatorycategoriesof evidencenot
discussedin thisdecision.
Page5
requirementisthatthecontributionsrisetothelevelof majorsignificancein thefieldasawhole,rather
thanto aprojector to anorganization.Thephrase"majorsignificance"is not superfluousand,thus,it
hassomemeaning.Silvermanv.EastrichMultipleInvestorFund,L.P.,51 F. 3d 28,31 (3"' Cir. 1995)
quotedin APWUv. Potter,343 F.3d619,626 (2"dCir.Sep15, 2003). Contributionsof major
significanceconnotesthatthepetitioner'swork hassignificantlyimpactedthefield. Thepetitioner
mustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meettheplain languagerequirementsof this
criterion.
The petitionerinitially claimedthat her performances,choreography,and her teachingwere her
contributionsin her field, notingthatshehasreceivedpositivereviewsin the media. The director
concludedthat the petitionerfailed to establishhow performancesat variousvenuesconstituteda
contributionof majorsignificance.
Regardingthepetitioner'sclaimsthatpublishedmaterialaboutherdemonstrateshereligibilityunder
this criterion,counselprovideda list of numerousarticlesrelatingto thepetitioneror articlesthat
mentionher. The regulationscontaina separatecriterionregardingpublishedmaterialaboutthe
petitioner.8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii).TheAAO will notpresumethatevidencerelatingto or even
meetingthe publishedmaterialcriterionis presumptiveevidencethat the petitioneralsomeetsthis
criterion. Hereit shouldbeemphasizedthattheregulatorycriteriaareseparateanddistinctfrom one
another. Becauseseparatecriteriaexist for publishedmaterialand original contributionsof major
significance,USCISclearlydoesnotviewthetwoasbeinginterchangeable.Publishednewsarticles
arenot sufficientevidenceunder8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v)absentevidencethattheywereof "major
significance."Cf Kazarianv. USCIS,580F.3d1030,1036(9* Cir.2009)aff'd inpart596F.3d1115
(9thCir. 2010). In 2010,theKazariancourtreaffirmedits holdingthattheAAO did notabuseits
discretionin findingthatthealienhadnotdemonstratedcontributionsof majorsignificance.596F.3d
at1122.SeealsoNegro-Plumpev.Okin,2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJat7 (D.Nev.Sept.8,2008)(rejecting
an interpretationof 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)that would "collapse"that criterion into 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(viii)).Toholdthatpublishedmaterialaboutthepetitionercreatesapresumptionthatshe
meetsnotonly8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii)butalso8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v)wouldrendermeaningless
thestatutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidenceor theregulatoryrequirementthatapetitionermeetat
leastthreeseparatecriteria. Thus,thereis nopresumptionthateverypublishedarticledocumentsa
contributionof majorsignificancein thefield;rather,thepetitionermustdocumenttheactualimpactof
thearticles.
Thearticlesin therecorddescribethepetitioner'snumerousperformancesin severalcountries;some
evendescribeoriginalcontributionssuchasherpersonalchoreographyor balletsthatshecomposed.
Thesearticlesdo not,however,describehow anyof thepetitioner'soriginalcontributionsin herfield
haveresultedin a significantimpactin herfield asa whole,ratherthanto festivalsor performances.
Anothercommonalityamongmanyof thearticlesdescribeshowthepetitionerhasspreadawarenessof
Kathakdanceto countriesoutsideof India. Promotingawarenessof a culturaldancethrough
performancefalls shortof establishingoriginalcontributionsof majorsignificancein the petitioner's
field asit doesnotdemonstratethattheherfield hasbeensignificantlyimpactedby theperformances.
Page6
In light of the above,the petitionerhasnot submittedqualifyingevidencethatsatisfiesthe plain
languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Evidenceofthe displayofthe alien'sworkin thefield atartisticexhibitionsor showcases.
The directoralsoacknowledgedthepetitionerperformeddancesat severalvenuesunderthe display
criterionat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii),butconcludedthattheperformanceswerenotdisplaysatartistic
exhibitionsor showcases.Thus,thedirectorconcludedthatshehadnot metthe requirementsof this
criterion. On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot contestthe director'sfindingsfor this criterionor offer
additionalarguments.TheAAO,therefore,considersthisissuetobeabandoned.Sepulveda401F.3dat
1228n.2;Hristov,2011WL 4711885,at *9. Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifying
evidenceunderthiscriterion.
Evidencethat the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizationsor
establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
This criterionanticipatesthat a leadingrole shouldbe apparentby its positionin the overall
organizationalhierarchyandthatit beaccompaniedby therole'smatchingduties.A criticalroleshould
be apparentfrom the petitioner'simpacton the organizationor the establishment'sactivities. The
petitioner'sperformancein this role shouldestablishwhethertherolewascriticalfor organizationsor
establishmentsasawhole. Thepetitionermustdemonstratethattheorganizationsor establishments(in
theplural)havea distinguishedreputation.While neithertheregulationnorprecedentspeakto what
constitutesa distinguishedreputation,Merriam-Webster'sonlinedictionarydefinesdistinguishedas,
"markedby eminence,distinction,or excellence."3Dictionariesarenot of themselvesevidence,but
theymaybereferredto asaidsto thememoryandunderstandingof thecourt. Nix v.Hedden,149U.S.
304, 306 (1893). Therefore,it is the petitioner'sburdento demonstratethat the organizationsor
establishmentsclaimedunderthis criterionaremarkedby eminence,distinction,excellence,or an
equivalentreputation.Thepetitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meetthe
plainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Thedirectorconcludedthattheevidenceon recordfailedto demonstratethattherolesthepetitioner
performedfor theIndianCouncilforCulturalRelations(ICCR)andtheAnilaSinhaFoundation(ASF),
aChicago-basednon-profit,wereleadingor critical. Thedirectordid notaddresswhethertheICCRor
theASFhasadistinguishedreputation.
On appe counselassertsthatthe directordid not give sufficientweightto the lettersfrom
and Counselalso reiteratespreviousassertionsthat the
publishedmaterialisrelevanttothiscriterion.
3Seehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished,accessedon November27, 2012,a copyof
whichisincorporatedintotherecordof proceeding.
Page7
Regardingthepetitioner'sroleatASF,counsel'sappellatebriefstates:"Sheis responsibleforteaching
andtrainingthestudents.SheiscriticaltoASFin thatsheservestofurtherthegoalsof ASFwhichisto
bring Kathakdanceandcultureto the community." Counsel'sappellatebrief failed to identifythe
evidenceto supportthisstatement.Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldonotconstituteevidence.
MatterofObaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534n.2(BIA 1988);MatterofLaureano,19I&N Dec.1,3 n.2
(BIA 1983);Matter of RamirezSanchez,17 I&N Dec.503,506 (BIA 1980). The unsupported
assertionsof counselin abriefarenotevidenceandthusarenotentitledtoanyevidentiaryweight.See
INSv.Phinpathya,464U.S.183,188-89n.6(1984).
Thepublishedmaterialandaprogramfor theSecondInternationalKathakFestivalin Chicagoidentify
thepetitionerasanartisticdirectorfor ASF. andDirectorof ASF,
confinnsthatthepetitionerhasservedastheArtistic Director,DanceChoreographerandTeacherat
ASFsince2005.Thepetitionerhasnotestablishedhowherrolein thosecapacitieshasbeencriticalto
ASF. For instance,while assertsgenerallythatthepetitioner'scontributionsto ASF have
"madeit oneof thepremierKathakschoolsin the Midwestin US," shedoesnot explainhowASF,
incorporatedin 1998andsponsorof theFirstInternationalKathakFestivalin 2004,hasprogressed
sincethe petitionerbeganworking therein 2005.4 USCIS neednot acceptprimarily conclusory
assertions.1756,Inc. v. TheAttorneyGeneralof the UnitedStates,745 F. Supp.9, 15(D.C. Dist.
1990).
Director of Programsand ExternalRelationsat the InternationalHouse at the
Universityof Chicago,statedthatthepetitioner"hasbeenatremendousassetto theyoungergeneration
of artistsandstudentsin the Chicagoarea." oesnot, however,referencea leadingor
critical role that thepetitionerhasperformedfor ASF. appearsto only havefirsthand
knowledgeof the petitioner'sperformanceson behalf of ASF that occurredat the Universityof
Chicago'sGlobalVoicesPerformingArts Program. Moreover, merelyassertsthatthe
petitionerparticipatedin theGlobalVoicesProgramanddoesnotexplainherrolefor thatprogram.
Theletterfrom is insufficientto establishthatthe petitionerhassatisfiedthe regulatory
requirementsbasedonherroleforASF.
ThepetitionercontendsthatASF'sdistinguishedreputationis evidentfrompublishedarticlesabout
ASF-sponsoredperformances.ThatthemediahasreviewedASF-sponsoredperformancesandevents
doesnotaddressthereputationof theorganization.Instead,thepetitionermustshowthattheASFhas
built a reputationmarkedby eminence,distinction,excellence,or an equivalentreputation.Counsel
hadalsopreviouslyclaimedthat ASF enjoysa distinguishedreputationbecause"ASF is the only
Kathakorganizationthathasa directlink to a Kathakschoolin India." Onceagain,theunsupported
assertionsof counseldonotconstituteevidence.Matterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.at534n.2);Matter
ofLaureano,19I&N Dec.at3 n.2;MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.at506. Regardless,while
this assertion,if true,demonstratesa uniquetrait of ASF, it doesnot follow thatASF enjoysa
distinguishedreputation. It remains,all of the programsfor ASF performancesreflect local
4Theprogramfor theSecondInternationalKathakFestivalindicatesASForganizedthefirstonein 2004andthat
it was"a greatsuccess."
Page8
performancesin Chicago,with therecordcontainingonereviewof a showin Wisconsin.In addition,
themediacoverageof ASFeventsappearsin theIndianReporter,theIndianTribune,theIndiaPost,
Narthaki.com,Asianwisconzine.com,publicationsfor whichthepetitionersubmittednocirculationdata.
Whilethepetitionerdid submitone2009articlein TheHindu,thatarticleonly mentionsASF in
passmg.
of AnthropologyandtheSocialSciencesat
theUniversityof Chicago,speaksto therolethepetitionerperformedatICCR,but hefails to indicate
whetherhe previouslyworkedwith the petitioner,or how he cameto ossessknowledgeof her
performancefor an entity of the Indiangovernment.In fact, only relieson his
experiencewith theUniversityof Chicago,ratherthanindicatingthattheholdsa sufficientknowledge
of ICCR in India. As a result,the petitionerhasnot shown accountof the
petitioner'sroleperformedfor ICCRderivesfromfirsthandknowledge.Thisaccountthereforehas
diminishedprobativevalue. Cf.8 C.F.R.§204.5(g)(1)(evidenceof experienceshallconsistof letters
fromtheemployer).
Theletterfrom JointSecretaryandDeputyDirectorGeneralat ICCR,merelyindicates
thatthepetitionerwasanempanelledKathakartistwith ICCR since1994andthatthepetitionerhas
performedabroadon behalfof ICCR. This letterfails to demonstratethe petitionerperformedin a
leadingor criticalrole for ICCR. Specifically, fails to explainhow thepetitioner's
positionatICCRfits withintheoverallhierarchyof ICCRor howthepetitionerimpactedICCRasa
whole.
Regardingthepetitioner'sroleatICCR,thepetitionerassertsshesatisfiedthisportionof thecriterion's
requirementsby travelingto variousAfricancountriesduringthecelebrationof thesemicentennialof
India'sindependence.Whilethepetitionerdidprovideevidenceto demonstratethatsheservedasan
empanelledartistonICCR'sbehalfoutsideof India,shehasnotprovidedevidencethatthisconstituted
aleadingor acriticalrolefor ICCR.
At thetimeshefiled thepetition,thepetitionerprovidedinformationfrom WikipediaregardingICCR.
Withregardto informationfromWikipedia,therearenoassurancesaboutthereliabilityof thecontent
fromthisopen,user-editedinternetsite.5SeeLamilemBadasav.MichaelMukasey,540F.3d909(8*
Cir.2008).Evenif theAAO didconsiderthisevidenceprobative,it statesonlythatICCR"empanels
5 Onlinecontentfrom Wikipediais subjectto the followinggeneraldisclaimer,"WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO
GUARANTEEOF VALIDITY. Wikipediais an onlineopen-contentcollaborativeencyclopedia,thatis, a
voluntaryassociationof individualsandgroupsworkingto developa commonresourceof humanknowledge.
Thestructureof theprojectallowsanyonewithanInternetconnectiontoalteritscontent.Pleasebeadvisedthat
nothingfoundherehasnecessarilybeenreviewedby peoplewith theexpertiserequiredto provideyouwith
complete,accurateor reliableinformation.. . . Wikipediacannotguaranteethevalidityof theinformationfound
here.Thecontentof anygivenarticlemayrecentlyhavebeenchanged,vandalizedor alteredbysomeonewhose
opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Generaldisclaimer,accessedonDecember11,2012,a copyof whichis
incorporatedintotherecordof proceeding.
Page9
performingartistswhoareproficientin theirfield. Empanelledartistsareaddedto areferencelist, and
mayreceivesponsorshipfromtheCouncilwhentheyperformintemationally."Nothingin thismaterial
suggestseveryempanelledperformerservesin aleadingorcriticalroleforICCR.
In view of the foregoing,the petitionerhas not submittedevidencethat satisfiesthe regulatory
requirementsof thiscriterion.
B. Summary
Thepetitionerhasfailedtosatisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.
III. CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryabilitymustclearlydemonstrate
thatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandis oneof thesmallpercentage
whohaverisentotheverytopof thefield of endeavor.
Had the petitionersubmittedthe requisiteevidenceunderat leastthreeevidentiarycategories,in
accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determinationthat
considersall of theevidencein the contextof whetheror not thepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a
"level of expertiseindicatingthatthe individualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento the
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor"and(2) "that the alienhassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthat his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise." 8C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(2)and(3);seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.WhiletheAAO concludesthatthe
evidenceis notindicativeof alevelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmallpercentageattheverytopof
thefieldor sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO neednotexplainthatconclusionin a
finalmeritsdetermination.6 Rather,theproperconclusionisthatthepetitionerhasfailedtosatisfythe
antecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id. at1122.
Thepetitionerhasnotestablishedeligibilitypursuanttosection203(b)(1)(A)of theActandthepetition
maynotbeapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of the
Act, 8U.S.C.§ 1361;Matter of Soriano,19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988)(citingMatter of
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)). Here, the petitionerhas not sustainedthat burden.
Accordingly,theappealwill bedismissed.
TheAAO maintainsdenovoreviewof all questionsof factandlaw. SeeSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d143,145(3d
Cir.2004).In anyfutureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdictiontoconductafinal meritsdetermination
astheofficethatmadethelastdecisionin thismatter.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealsosection103(a)(1)of
theAct; section204(b)of theAct; DHSDelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch1,2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1
(2003);8 C.F.R.§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003);MatterofAurelio,19I&N Dec.458,460(BIA 1987)(holdingthat
legacyINS,nowUSCIS,isthesoleauthoritywiththejurisdictiontodecidevisapetitions).
Page10
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.