dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

;'1 IP,UC COpy 
U.S. lJepartmcnt of Homeland Security 
U.S. Cili.1CIlShi;J and Irnmi!lrali!lJl <"':cn·i\."(:" 
Adrnini"trilLiVl': .\ppcah (III in (;\:\0) 
~() i\1;L<.; .... achu"l·:h .. \n· .. "-; W .. f\lS .:'ll')(j 
Wd~hiIlUlOn. DC :20:'.)(;·.'()!)(I 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JUN 252012 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)( 1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § JJ53(h)( J )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents relatcd to this mailer have been returned to the ollice that originally decided your casco Plcase 
hc adviscd that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to rcopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requircs any motion to he filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
.. "" \ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.goy 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center, and 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" in education, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1 153(b)(l)(A) as 
a "Christian scholar and educator." I The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). More specifically, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets the 
regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v), and (viii). For the 
reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's decision. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) 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, 
! According to information on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner was last admitted 
to the United States on October 10, 2008 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. 
Page 3 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 IOI
st 
Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The tenn "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. Id.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) 
or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2(10). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.2 With respect to the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate 
concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits detennination.'· Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence. "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to 
satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 
(citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits detennination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 
the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. ld. 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary n.:quircments 
beyond lhose sel j(,rlh in the regulalions al8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria) 
Docllmentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence ill the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a Doctor of Divinity degree (2010) from the Cambridge Theological 
Seminary, Byesville, Ohio stating: "For Having Completed all Studies and Qualifications, as 
Required by the Bishop & Council, for this 'Title & Degree' of Doctorate.,,4 Academic study is 
not a field of endeavor, but, rather, training for future employment in a field of endeavor. An 
advanced degree may indicate that the petitioner has fulfilled certain post-baccalaureate 
academic requirements at a particular school, but it does not constitute a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. Significantly, this office has 
held, in a precedent decision involving a lesser classification than the one sought in this matter, that 
academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade point average, is not a specific prior 
achievement that establishes the alien's ability to benefit the national interest. Matter of New 
York Stale Dep'l. of Tramp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 219, n.6 (Comm'r 1998). Thus, academic 
performance is certainly not comparable to the awards criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), designed to demonstrate an alien's eligibility for this more exclusive 
classification. 
The petitioner submitted a July 19, 2009 Gold Award Certificate from Glory Life Church, 
London, United Kingdom stating: ''This award is given to [the petitioner] for distinguish [sicl 
service to the body of Christ and to this church through Literature, Christian education and 
Selfless contribution to humanity," The petitioner also submitted a "Special Award Certificate" 
from International Central Gospel Church, Silver Spring, Maryland stating: "This special award 
of honor is given to [the petitioner] for distinguished and sacrificial service to the body of Christ 
through teaching, preaching and outstanding Christian literature which has impacted the lives of 
many around the world including this church." The preceding awards reflect institutional 
recognition by the Glory Life Church and the International Central Gospel Church rather than 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted an award certificate from Ceval Consult, Accra, Ghana (2007) stating: 
.1 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
4 "The Association of Theological Schools (ATS) is a memhership organization of more than 250 graduate schools 
in the United States and Canada that conduct post-baccalaureate professional and academic degree programs to 
educate persons for the practice of ministry and for teaching and research in the theological disciplines. The 
Commission on Accrediting of ATS accredits institutions and approves degree programs offered by accredited 
schools." See hllr:I/\y.:-yy,.'.als.edu/~!.bout/Pagcs/dcr~1_LJ1Ut:mK accessed on June 5, 2012, copy incorporated into the 
record of proceedings. The AAO notes that the Camhridge Theological Seminary is not listed as an accredited 
member of the ATS. See http;/!w\\':\\;:.ats.cdu/Ml'mhI,'L)~.llO()ls/Pagcs/Alnh(!.aspx accessed on June 5, 2012, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
Page 5 
This Award is respectfully presented to [the petitioner] for his immense contribution to 
Evangelism, Contemporary Biblical Exposition through media, Seminars and 
Conferences, lt is also in celebration of his immense assistance and resource contribution 
service to the Ceval Gospel Awards, we celebrate you as a special Ceval Awards 
Personality. 
With regard to the petitioner's Doctor of Divinity degree from the Cambridge Theological 
Seminary, Gold Award Certificate from Glory Life Church, Special Award Certificate from 
International Central Gospel Church, and Ceval Consult award, the petitioner did not submit 
evidence of the national or international recoRnition of his particular awards, such as national or 
widespread local coverage of his awards in religious publications or general media. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's 
awards be nationally or internationally recoRnized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to 
establish every element of this criterion. In this case, there is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner's awards were recognized beyond the presenting organizations 
and therefore commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field. Accordingl y, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
regulatory criterion. 
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. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.' 
The petitioner submitted an advertisement entitled "Kings light Chapel Int. Inc. WE ARE A 
YEAR OLD" (2010) in the New Ghanaian, a community newspaper serving Ghanaians in the 
Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia regions. The advertisement invites readers to attend 
worship services at Kingslight Chapel International church where the petitioner is the "Senior 
Pastor and General Overseer." The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires 
"published material about the alien" including "the title. date and author of the material." The 
preceding advertisement, which is not the result of independent media reportage, does not meet 
the preceding requirements. Further, there is no circulation evidence showing that New 
Ghanaian qualifies as a form of major media. 
5 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual\ reputation outside of lhat county. 
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted a review of his book Goliath Can Fall in the February 11, 2006 issue of 
Daily Graphic, but the book review (consisting of 23 paragraphs) only briefly mentions the 
petitioner in the first few sentences, The petitioner submitted another book review of Goliath 
Can Fall however, the date and title of the newspaper in 
which not identified as required by the plain language 
of this regulatory criterion. review of the petitioner's book was also posted 
on the "Ghana Web Blog" at www.ghanawcb.com. but the date of the online article was not 
identified. The submitted an additional book review by discussing 
his book review of the preceding book waS 
posted on the Kingslight Chapel International"s website, but the date of the online article was not 
identified as required by this regulatory criterion. The preceding book reviews are not pUIJW' ,1lCU 
material about the Instead, they are articles about his books 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires that the material be "about the alien." See, e.g., Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 
2:07-CY-820-ECR-RJJ at *1,*7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2(08) (upholding a finding that articles about a 
show are not about the actor). Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C), which requires evidence 
"about the alien's work." It cannot be credibly asserted that the submitted book reviews are "about" 
the The also submitted a February 18, 2006 article in Daily Graphic entitled 
launches two books," but the article includes only four sentences 
mentioning the petitioner. In addition to the preceding deficiencies, there is no documentary 
evidence (such as readership data or circulation evidence) showing that the "Ghana Web Blog" 
at www.ghanaweb.com. the Kingslight Chapel International's website, and the Daily Graphic 
qualify as major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidl'nce olthe alien's original scientific, scholarly. artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
In the director's decision. she determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate original 
scholar! y contributions of major significance in the field of Christian education. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 c.r.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[eJvidence of the alien's 
original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." [Emphasis added.] Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see 
whether it rises to the level of original scholarly contributions "of major significance in the 
field." The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and. thus, it has some meaning. 
Silverman v. Eastrich MIllliple Investor Fund, L.P., 5 1 F. 3d 28, 31 (3'd Cir. 1995) quoted in 
APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2"d Cir. Sep 15,2003). 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of six books, materials pertaining to his 
speaking engagements, and letters of support discussing his work. 
Hnnp\lcnmh Publications, Accra, Ghana, states: 
Page 7 
We are proud to be the publishers of all the six ground breaking and inspiring books so 
far authored by [the petitioner] and the details are as follows: 
I. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
YEAR OF PUBLICATION 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2007 
2008 
have done extremely well. Over the period of the marketing of these 
books, book launches/signings were organized across the length and breadth of Ghana as 
well in the United Kingdom and the USA. alone sold over 50,000 
copies in Ghana and about 10,000 copies in foreign lands such as Europe and America. 
With a new approach of connecting with the major international players in the industry 
the potential of these books is simply too great. 
We at Honeycomb publications believe we have discovered an unusual author with 
extraordinary ability and national recognition and just about to catch the world's 
attention. One of his uniqueness stems from the fact that though he is a Pharmacist by 
profession, he writes like somebody trained in the arts. 
The self-serving comments from the petitioner's publisher are not sutticient to demonstrate that the 
petitioner's books equate to original scholarly contributions of major significance in the field. 
USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CY __ (c. 
D. CA July 6, 2007) aiI'd 2009 WL (9th Cir. 2(09) (concluding that the AAO did not have 
to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major 
media). Regardless, the petitioner has not established that selling 60,000 copies 
_ is indicative of an original contribution of "major significance" in the field 
education. Further, there is no documentary evidence showing the unit sales 
Moreover, there is no documentatIOn oner's 
books have attracted significant attention from independent religious scholars, that his books arc 
frequently used as a part of renowned Christian university curricula, or that his books otherwise 
qualify as original scholarly contributions of major significance in the field'I':=====~ 
comments that "the potential of [the petitioner's] books is simply too great." 
expectations regarding the future impact or potential sales of the petitioner's books do not 
constitute evidence that they were already majorly influential at the time of filing the petition. 
The petitioner must demonstrate his eligibility as of the filing date. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)( I), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg' I Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of 
/zummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter or 
Bardoltille, IH I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into 
Page 8 
being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." [d. at l76. Consistent with these decisions, a 
petitioner cannot secure a priority date in the hope that his work will subsequently prove 
intluential. Ultimately, in order to be meritorious in fact, a petition must meet the statutory and 
regulatory requirements for approval as of the date it was filed. ()gundipe v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 
257,261 (4th Cir. 2008). To hold otherwise would have the untenable result of an alien securing 
a priority date based on the speculation that his work might prove intluential while the petition is 
pending. 
Revelation Temple, Burtonsville, Maryland, states: 
I ... write to introduce my friend and yoke-fellow [the petitioner]. I have known [the 
petitioner] for many years as an outstanding preacher and a prolific writer of international 
standing. 
His unique perspective on the Christian faith is copiously evident in the six (6) inspiring 
and ground breaking hooks he has so far authored. 
He has been a regular speaker in my church and the saints really appreciate his ministry 
and read his books with many testimonies of the power of God following. 
[The petitioner's] style, gifts, knowledge and depths of understanding on the Holy 
Scriptures, presents him as a unique speaker, a rare quality that is in dire need across the 
body of Christ worldwide. 
comments that the petitioner's "style, gifts, knowledge and depths of 
understanding on the Holy Scriptures" demonstrate that he is a "unique speaker" of "rare 
quality." Merely having a diverse skill set is not a contribution of major significance in and of 
itself. Rather, the record must be supported by documentary evidence that the petitioner has 
already used those unique skills to impact the field at a significant level in an original way. 
Furthermore, assuming the petitioner's skills are unique or rare, the classification sought was not 
designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field, In fact, that issue properly falls 
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien employment certification 
process. See Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 
(Comm'r 1998) . 
••••••••••••••••• World Outreach Ministries, Elizabeth, New Jersey, 
states: 
I have personally known [the petitioner] over the years as an astute preacher, teacher, 
motivational speaker and industrious entrepreneur. He is a Pharmacist by profession and 
Pastor by call. As a prolific writer of international repute, his unique ministry and 
perspective of the Christian faith is evidenced in the six (6) books he has to his credit. 
* * ,~ 
[The petitioner] is a regular speaker in my church and our annual convention. He always 
leaves an indelible mark of truth and practical demonstration of the power of the Hoi y 
Ghost. His style, gifts and depth of knowledge of the Holy Scriptures constantly engages 
him in conferences, seminars, conventions etc. in Ghana, UK and especially in the US. 
Talk about the originality of the church of Christ, Christ-centered, Kingdom-focused and 
undiluted presentation of the infallible Word of Truth and [the petitioner] stands tall. 
Hence, the great demand on him and his ministry internationally. I consider him a power 
house and a force to reckon with. Testimonies in the U.S. are palpable. 
comments that the petitioner has authored six books and spoken at World 
Outreach Ministries, but he does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work has 
substantially impacted Christian religious education, has influenced the work of scholars in the 
field, or otherwise equates to original contributions of "major significance" in the field. 
Publications 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. 2(09) aiI'd ;n parI 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its 
holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated 
contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. Thus, there is no presumption that every 
book or religious speaking engagement is a contribution of major significance; rather, the 
petitioner must document the actual impact of his publication or speaking presentation in the 
field. 
Pentecost International Worship Center, a one­
hundred twenty member multi-ethnic church in Tempe, Arizona, states: 
One of the few people who have been a tremendous source of encouragement to me and 
the leadership of my church is [the petitioner]. He has been a guest speaker in our church 
for a number of times. 
His ability to utilize the word of God to encourage, build up the total man, and motivate 
people to better themselves is simply unrivaled. [The petitioner's] heart for ministry and 
passion to affect the spiritual lives of people is evident in his writings. He is a prolific 
author and have [ sic] written six life-changing books. 
His knowledge, understanding of scripture and its application combined with a God­
given gift of eloquence make him a rare kind. During this era where many are giving up 
hope and even more are facing hard times, [the petitioner's] gifts will be needed across 
the country. I have no doubt that many churches will benefit from his ministry. 
* * :~ 
He will be a wonderful addition to the ecclesiastical talent pool in the United States. 
Page 10 
In the same manner as and comments on the 
petitioner's speaking engagements. The petitioner's evidence showing 
that the petitioner has spoken at various churches and religious gatherings. Participation in such 
events, however, does not constitute original contributions of major significance in the field. 
There is no evidence showing that the petitioner's work is of major significance to the field as a 
whole and not limited to the local engagements where he spoke. The petitioner failed to 
establish, for example, that his oratory presentations were of major significance so as to establish 
their impact or influence beyond the audience at the gatherings. 
Ramah Bible College, Ilford, 
United Kingdom, states: 
I write to introduce [the petitioner], who is an accomplished pharmacist and a greatly 
endowed speaker, [The petitioner] by my estimation is a very gifted author, a unique 
preacher and a highly anointed man of God, full of wisdom. I consider these 
endowments as exceptional because of the rareness of his qualities. I have known him 
for a while as a seriously minded person very focused on his life goals and vision. 
The depth of [the petitioner's] writings are simply breath-taking, each of his SIX 
inspirational books are all unique page-turners which challenges the status quo. 
I highly recommend his books to my Bible College students as well as all avid readers 
who wishes [sic] to be inspired, encouraged and motivated. 
states that he highly recommends the petitioner's books to his Bible 
~L"lC;g~ students, but does not indicate that books are used as a part of the Ramah 
Bible College curricula. Further, fails to provide specific examples 
indicating how the petitioner's work has impacted the field or is otherwise of major significance. 
For instance, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's work is listed on course curricula 
of theological programs at renowned Christian universities or that is books have attracted significant 
attention from independent religious scholars. While the petitioner has written matcrial and 
spoken on various religious subjects, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that his 
work equates to original scholarly contributions of major significance in the field. 
Reverend Lord Cobblah, resident pastor of Glory Life Church, London, United Kingdom, states: 
[The petitioner] has been known to me for many years as an exceptional orator, preacher 
and a prolific writer of exceptional quality. His unique perspective on the Christian faith 
is abundantly expressed in the great number of books he has so far written. These books 
have made a great impact here in London and across the UK 
We highly appreciate his ministry and have been a regular guest speaker at our 
conferences and the impact of his messages over those present has always been 
productive and tangible. 
Page 11 
If there has ever been a time" when an anointed, knowledgeable and humble servant of 
God is needed in the broken and decaying communities of the world, to lead an 
exemplary life, infecting and affecting people positively, then I would say it is now and I 
would not hesitate to consider [the petitioner]. 1 am very confident that he is an 
instrument and a vessel that can help bring the church of Jesus Christ to its original place. 
Unreservedly, I would without doubt envisage a greater demand for his ministry 
everywhere, especially in the USA. 
,,,,,c,,, that the petitioner's "books have made a great impact . in 
London and across the UK," but there is no documentary evidence to support the claim. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Further, 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, fnc. v. The A ' General of 
the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dis!. 1990). While 
expresses his appreciation for the petitioner's ministry, he fails to provide specific examples of 
how the information and ideas in the petitioner's books are being widely applied by others in the 
field or that they otherwise equate to original contributions of "major significance" in the tield. 
Life Changers Church 
write to introduce [the petitioner], an awesome speaker and a great author of 
international standing. I have known [the petitioner] for years and have been impressed 
with his exceptional leadership ability as well as his deep spiritual endowments. 
[The petitioner's 1 writings are rare and of unusual quality, his six inspirational books 
have greatly impacted my church with wonderful testimonies following. In fact the book 
titled 'Goliath Can Fall' is an adopted book in my church for leadership training and 
general inspiration. 
I recognize [the petitioner] as a special vessel, a leading man of God that stands tall in his 
field of endeavour. His gifts and talents have contributed immensely to the development 
of many people across the globe. He has connected with many people through his 
writings and messages. 
a close associate of the petitioner, comments that the petitioner's book 
Goliath Can Fall "is an adopted book in my church for leadership training and general 
inspiration." There is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work was 
recognized beyond church such that his book constitutes an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than 
limited to only a small number of religious institutions. does not provide 
specific examples of how the petitioner's work has substantially educational 
Page 12 
methodologies, has influenced the work of religious scholars in the field, or otherwise constitutes 
original contributions of major significance in the field. 
In evaluating the reference letters, the AAO notes that that letters containing mere assertions of 
widespread acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that 
specifically identify contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have 
influenced the field. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition 
carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. 
An individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce 
unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. Vague, solicited letters from one's colleagues or 
letters that do not specifically identify contributions or how those contributions have influenced 
the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USC/S, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9'" Cir. 2009). 
The opinions of the petitioner's references 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 international, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. id. The submission of reference letters supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Malter of v­
K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2(08) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to 
be evidence as to ·'fact"). Thus, the content of the references' statements and how they became 
aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less 
weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a religious educator and 
scholar who has made original contributions of major significance in the field. Without 
additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, 
widely applied throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major 
significance, the AAO cannot conclude he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distingllished reputation. 
The petition submitted documentation indicating that Kingslight Chapel 
International, Inc. in Woodbridge, Virginia and that he serves as the church's •• iII ••••• 
The petitioner also submitted flyers, advertisements, and announcements 
promoting his church's events. 6 USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. 
POll los, No. CV (c. D. CA July 6, 2(07) aird 2009 WL (9th Cir. 20(9) 
(concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine 
as to the magazine's status as major media). There is no documentary evidence showing that 
Kingslight Chapel International, Inc. has garnered a distinguished reputation relative to other 
places of worship. 
h The submitted materials indicate that Kingslight Chapel International, Inc. holds its church services at the 
Ebenezer Presbyterian Church. 
Page 13 
In response to the director's notice of intent to deny (NOlO), the petitioner submitted letters from 
the Foreign Mission Auxiliary of the Eastern & Southern States Council of the Pentecostal 
Churches of the Apostolic Faith, Inc, and Kingdom Praise Ministries inviting him to serve as a 
guest speaker at events in May 2007 and September 2009, respectively, The petitioner has not 
established that these temporary speaking engagements are tantamount to performing in a 
leading or critical role for the Foreign Mission Auxiliary of the Eastern & Southern States 
Council of the Pentecostal Churches of the Apostolic Faith, Inc, and Kingdom Praise Ministries. 
The documentation submitted by the petitioner fails to demonstrate that he was responsible for the 
preceding organizations' success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or 
critical role:' Further, there is no documentary evidence showing that the preceding 
organizations have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner's response to the director's NOID also included letters from World Outreach 
Ministries, Praise Harvest Community Church, Greater Bethlehem Temple Church, Glory Life 
Church, and Harvest Chapel International inviting the petitioner to serve a guest speaker at 
notes t engagements pWit-dlate 
As previousl y discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of 
AAO will not consider the preceding speaking engagements as evidence to 
establish the petitioner's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49. Regardless, the petitioner has not established that his temporary speaking 
engagements were indicative of performing in leading or critical role for the preceding churches 
and that the churches had a distinguished reputation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, 
in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir 1 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, 590 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
Page 14 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination. 7 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. [d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, I; U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7 TheAAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143. 145 (3d Cir. 
2(04). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
thilt made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(l) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DES Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1,20(3); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(1)(3)(iii) (211m); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (B1A 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).