dismissed EB-1A Case: Education / Communications

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
'dentilying uul;i deierd to U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigratio~l @went clr;lrlw unwamm Services ~nv~on of persomJ pdw 
FILE: EAC 04 077 50490 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 3 9 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
.the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
"al 
&Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 04 077 50490 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
education. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submiited to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in education, specifically in 
the field of communications. The petitioner submitted 19 supporting documents with her petition, which was 
received by the Vermont Service Center on January 22, 2004. On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner 
submitted additional supporting materials on November 3, 2004 that were not considered by the director in his 
decision. We have reviewed the entire record and address the evidence submitted and counsel's claims in the 
following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an alliedfield of specification for which classijication is sought. 
EAC 04 077 50490 
Page 3 
The petitioner does not claim eligibility under this criterion, but the record contains relevant evidence which 
merits brief discussion. The record indicates that the petitioner taught communications classes at four academic 
institutions in Brazil. In her supplementary submission, the petitioner states that the Salgado de Oliveira 
University also "invited [her] to be part of the examining board to evaluate the theses of the graduating classes," 
but the record contains no evidence that she served on this examining board. Simply going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The petitioner's teaching undoubtedly required her to judge the work of her students. However, duties or 
activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate 
national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine in the occupation itself, or in a substantial 
proportion of positions within that occupation. The petitioner submitted no evidence that she has judged of the 
work of other individuals in the communications field in a manner significantly outside the general duties of her 
teaching positions and reflective of national or international acclaim. Accordingly, she does not meet this 
criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scient$c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major sign$cance in the field. 
The petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion through her accomplishments in seven positions that she 
held in Brazil. First, on page two of her "Supplementary Presentation," the petitioner states that she was a 
traveling consultant and post-graduate professor for the Institute of Advanced Research in Education (IPAE) 
where she "created and administered courses at-a-distance through the Internet for the state directors of' SENAC, 
the National Learning Services for Commerce, in four states." The record contains a letter from the President of 
IPAE, who affirms that the petitioner worked for the Institute as "a traveling Consultant and Professor of 
Marketing in Education for the Post-graduate Courses of [IPAE], under the sponsorship of the national 
organization SENAC." The letter explains that from 1998 to 2000, the petitioner "administered courses with the 
textbooks she authored: Web writing, Techniques for Creating Internet Texts, Introduction to the Techniques of 
Publicity and Advertising I and I1 and Business Communications." The record contains a "Declaration of 
Remuneration" stating that the petitioner received $800 Reais from IPAE for teaching the course, Marketing of 
Education. The petitioner also submitted a document entitled "Web Writing Course: Creative Techriiques for 
the Web by Carmen Brasil." Although the petitioner has labeled this document as "Evidence of Textbook 
authorship #2g," it appears to be a course syllabus and includes headings such as "Prerequisites," "Class Hours," 
and "Maximum Number of Students." The record contains documents describing textbooks for three of the 
other courses listed in the IPAE letter. None of these documents are photocopies of actual textbooks and they 
include no international standard book numbers or other evidence that they represent published textbooks. Even 
if the described textbooks were published, the petitioner submitted no evidence that the books have been cited or 
that her work at IPAE was otherwise recognized as making major contributions to her field in ,a manner 
consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. 
Second, the petitioner claims that at the Salgado de Oliveira University she "worked in conjunction with the 
Federal Department of Education & Culture to organize and set up a new department of Social 
Communications." The petitioner submitted a "Declaration" from the University stating only that the petitioner 
was "a professor of Social Communications from august [sic] 17, 1996 to February 22, 2000." The record 
EAC 04 077 50490 
Page 4 
contains no evidence that the petitioner received national recognition in her field for her work at the IJniversity 
or any other evidence that her work there made major contributions to her field. 
Third, the petitioner states that she "lectured at the famous ETEC, the Technical School of Communications of 
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil" and explains that "[tlhrough The Internet, videos and original resources, [she] prepared 
the students to work in publicity and advertising and creative communications." The record contains a 
"Declaration" on ETEC letterhead stationary, which states, "Carmen Vera da Silva Brasil . . . was a Professor 
of Publicity from February 26, 1996 to December 28, 2000." The declaration notes that the petitioner "had an 
excellent moral and professional conduct," but does not substantively discuss her work as a professor or any 
contributions that she made to her field while employed by ETEC. 
Fourth, the petitioner claims that "[t]hrough the Virtual School of Rio de Janeiro, I have credit for being one of 
the first persons in Brazil to implement and coordinate courses entirely through the Internet." The petitioner 
submitted printouts from the website of the Virtual School that contain course descriptions for "Business 
Communication" and "Publicity Techniques." The petitioner is listed as the "Author" for both of these courses, 
but the record does not corroborate the petitioner's claim of being a pioneer of courses taught through the 
Internet in Brazil. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Fifth, the petitioner claims she was frequently invited to lecture at various educational and business 
establishments. The record contains a list of five lectures given by the petitioner in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 
between 1995 and 1998, but the petitioner submitted no corroborative documentation of these lectures or any 
other evidence that her presentations had a major impact in her field throughout Brazil. 
Sixth, the petitioner states that as director and editor of the Perform Publishing Company of Rio de Janeiro, she 
"was responsible for the publications of large institutions." The record documents just one example of this work, 
a copy of Nova Imagen, a monthly magazine published by the Association of the Employees of the Worker 
Justice Department in Rio de Janeiro. The submitted copy of the first edition of Nova Imagen lists the petitioner 
as "Responsible Head Editor" and "Journalist" and contains a forward and four articles written by the petitioner. 
Yet the record contains no evidence that this single edition of Nova Imagen made a major contribution to the 
petitioner's field in Brazil. 
Finally, the petitioner claims that as the Communication Resource Specialist for the Bizzi Communications and 
Marketing Company, she used "advertising, merchandizing and sales promotion techniques for a variety of 
businesses," but the record documents her work for only one company. The record contains a copy of a 
promotional brochure for the Clinical Hospital of the Lagos Region, which identifies the petitioner as 
"Responsible Head Editor." The petitioner submitted no evidence that this brochure or any of her other 
purported work for the Bizzi company made a major impact in her field. 
The record documents the petitioner's employment as an instructor for academic institutions and as an editor of 
one edition of a magazine and one promotional brochure. On appeal, counsel contends that the director did not 
consider "the merit and influence of petitioner's publications and other achievements in Brazil." Counsel 
submits no additional evidence to corroborate this alleged "merit and influence," but simply cites evidence 
previously submitted, which we addressed in our above discussion. Beyond verifying the petitioner's 
EAC 04 077 50490 
Page 5 
employment, the record does not indicate that the petitioner has made any major contributions to her field in a 
manner consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, she does not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scho~ar~y articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
As discussed above under the fifth criterion, the record contains copies of an undated edition of NOV~Z lmagem 
which lists the petitioner as "Responsible Head Editor" and "Journalist" and contains a forward and four articles 
written by the petitioner. The record contains English translations of only the forward and an interview 
conducted by the petitioner. Neither of these manuscripts are scholarly articles in the petitioner's field of 
communications. Rather, the forward is a three-paragraph introduction to the first edition of Nova Irnagem, a 
periodical of the Association of the Employees of the Worker Justice Department, and the second is the 
transcript of an interview with a labor union leader. In addition, the submitted English translation of this 
magazine does not include the periodical's publisher, publication or circulation information and the record 
contains no other evidence that Nova Imagem is a professional or major trade publication in Brazil. 
As further evidence under this category, the petitioner cites the promotional brochure for the Clinical Hospital of 
the Lagos discussed above under the fifth criterion. This brochure lists the petitioner as "Responsible Head 
Editor," not author. Yet even if the petitioner wrote the brochure's text, it does not constitute a scholarly article 
in her field. Rather, as the petitioner explains in her supplemental letter, the brochure was used "as a marketing 
tool." Hence, the brochure is an example of the petitioner's work product. It is not a scholarly article in her 
field that was published in a professional, major trade journal or other major media. 
The petitioner also claims eligibility under this criterion through her "authorship" of communications courses 
and textbooks. As discussed above under the fifth criterion, the record contains copies of syllabi for three 
courses taught by the petitioner at various academic institutions in Brazil and documents that summarize the 
contents of four textbooks allegedly written by the petitioner. One of these documents, entitled "Web Writing 
Course: Creative Techniques for the Web," appears to be a course syllabus even though it is labeled, "Evidence 
of Textbook authorship #2g." None of the course syllabi or "textbook" documents include any evidence that 
they were printed in professional, major trade publications or other major media. 
Finally, the petitioner submits a list including five articles which she purportedly authored that were published 
in the Communication Newsletter of the Salgado de Oliveira University in Rio de Janeiro. The record contains 
no copies or other documentation of these articles or evidence that Communication Newsletter is a professional 
or major trade publication in Brazil. 
On appeal, counsel notes that "although some of her publications may not be considered 'articles,"' the 
petitioner's work warrants "consideration under the evidentiary catchall of 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4)." Despite 
counsel's characterization, this regulatory provision of 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(4) is not an "evidentiary catchall." 
To the contrary, the comparable evidence provision is invoked only when the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." Counsel does not explain and the record 
does not demonstrate that the petitioner's occupation is unique, abstruse or otherwise warrants the consideration 
of comparable evidence. In fact, the record in this case shows that at least five of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) are applicable to the petitioner's occupation as a communications educator and professional. 
EAC 04 077 50490 
Page 6 
The record contains no evidence that the petitioner has written scholarly articles in her field that have been 
published in professional, major trade publications or other major media. Consequently, she does not meet this 
criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion by virtue of her former affiliations with IPAE, SENAC, Salgado de 
Oliveira University and the Virtual Internet School. The record verifies the petitioner's employment with IPAE 
as a traveling Consultant and Professor of Marketing in Education for graduate courses, under the sponsorship 
of SENAC. Yet even if IPAE and SENAC have distinguished reputations, the record does not demonstrate that 
the petitioner played a leading or critical role for either organization. The only documentation of the petitioner's 
work is the aforementioned letter from IPAE, which simply verifies the petitioner's employment. 'The letter 
does not substantively discuss the petitioner's work or otherwise describe the petitioner as performing a leading 
or critical role for the Institute as a whole. The petitioner also submitted a printout from the website of SENAC, 
but the document does not identify her and states that the institution employed 15,571 professors in 2003. 
Similarly, the record verifies the petitioner's employment as a Professor of Social Communications at Salgado 
de Oliveira University from 1996 to 2000, but does not corroborate the petitioner's claim that she "set up their 
new department of Social Communications." Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Similarly, the 
record shows that the petitioner taught two courses for the Virtual Internet School, but does not corrol>orate the 
petitioner's claim that she "was their communications' [sic] specialist both for formal courses and special 
training for business enterprises." Again, simply going on record is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Id. On appeal, counsel contends that the petitioner "was one of the first people in Brazil to 
pioneer the technology of the internet for use not only in the classroom, but as a classroom, and The Virtual 
School has been a major organization in Brazil's technological transition." The submitted printout from the 
website of the Virtual School does not confirm this statement and the record is devoid of any other evidence to 
corroborate counsel's claim. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, 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 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijkantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The record contains a document indicating that the petitioner received a gross income of $1,076.46 Reais for 
November 2000 as a professor at the Virtual School and a receipt affirming that the petitioner received $800 
Reais for teaching a class for IPAE on November 11, 2000. In her supplementary statement, the petitioner states 
that at that time "the regular salary in Brazil was R$151.00 a month for forty hours." Yet the relevant 
comparative income is not the regular Brazilian salary, but the income of other educators in the petitioner's 
field. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner's remuneration was significantly higher than other 
educators in her field or comparable to educators at the very top of her field. Moreover, even if the petitioner's 
income was significantly high in November 2000, the record contains no evidence that she continued to 
EAC 04 077 50490 
Page 7 
command a similar salary in the three subsequent years prior to the filing of this petition. Accordingly, the 
petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
The record also contains several documents regarding the petitioner's activities since her arrival in the United 
States in 2001. Congressman Michael H. Michaud states that the petitioner "has contributed significantly to the 
social and cultural fabric of this ever changing, and diverse community. Her multicultural and multilingual 
communication skills are very rare indeed and are much needed as this community continues its growth and 
diversification. We need more individuals like Carmen to help us foster mutual understanding and tolerance in 
these ever [sic]." Jill Moreau, Lewiston Maine Even Start Family Literacy Program Coordinator, states that the 
petitioner has participated in her program for a year and that the petitioner "has the capability and resources to 
meet the growing need we have as a community." Christine M. Adler of Androscoggin Head Start and Child 
Care explains that the petitioner attended a five-week training at Androscoggin for substitute caregivers. These 
letters indicate that the petitioner has been an active and valued member of her community in Lewiston, Maine 
and that she continues to seek opportunities in her field in this country. However, the letters do not deinonstrate 
that the petitioner has achieved any recognition for her work in the United States outside of the city where she 
currently resides. The record thus indicates that the petitioner did not achieve sustained national acclaim in 
Brazil and has not garnered national acclaim for her subsequent work in the United States. 
The record also includes support letters from Charlie Swett of the Internal Revenue Service and Anita 
Clearfield, Television Producer at Maine Public Broadcasting Corporation. We cannot consider this evidence 
because the record indicates that the petitioner's accomplishments discussed in the letters arose after her petition 
was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(12), Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the petitioner taught communications courses for academic institutions in Brazil and also 
worked as an editor. However, the record does not establish that the petitioner has achieved sustained national 
or international acclaim placing her at the very top of her field. She is thus ineligible for classification as an 
alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(l)(A), and her 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.