dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~ted 
invasion of personal prlvac}' 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529·2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 1 4 2010 
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. § \\S3(b)(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF·REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § \03.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § \03.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~~ 
}/ Perry Rhew \j ""-­
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C § 1153(b)(1)(A).1 The director 
determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive 
documentation and 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 CF.R. § 2D4.5(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 CF.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, the petitioner argues that she meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence 
at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's ultimate 
conclusion that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
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 
1 According to information on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner was last admitted to 
the United States in February 200R as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor. Her authorized period of stay expired on August 8, 
2008. 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and lrrunigration 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. 723 101 st 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. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in 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; 
(iii) 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; 
(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 allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
Page 4 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
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 1 115 (9th Cir. 2010). 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? 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 determination." !d. 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)." [d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to 
this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "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)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-1120. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer EnteTrises, Inc. v. United States, 229 
F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9' Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. 
DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo 
basis ). 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on April 14, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a researcher historian, political scientist, and educator. At the time of filing, the petitioner 
submitted an verification letter that she has worked as "an associate pnJfess()r 
categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
[The petitioner 1 has been awarded a Course Development Competition grant from the 
Curriculum Resource Center of the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary. The 
Grant was given for the development of a new University course during the 2003-2004 
academic year and included two training workshops, in Course Design and Teaching 
Methodology. 
The petitioner also submitted an August 21, 2003 letter addressed to her from 
Director, CRC, Central European University, stating that the CRC selected her project "to receive a 
Course Development Competition Grant in the amount of $3050 ... for the period of August, 2003 
through July, 2004." 
The petitioner's initial submission also included a June 21, 2006 letter addressed to her from. 
_stating that the CRC selected her project "to receive a Course Development Competition 
Grant in the amount of $4550 ... for the period of September, 2006 through June, 2007." 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted the Course Development 
Competition "Program Description" and "Call for Proposals 2007" from the CRC's website. The 
Program Description states: 
The Course Development Competition is intended to encourage faculty from Eastern Europe, 
Southeastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Mongolia to develop and introduce new 
university courses at their institutions. Applicants are invited to prepare a one or two 
semester long course in the discipline areas listed in our call for proposals. Proposed courses 
should be innovative in content, methodology and teaching approach. 
_1 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
The mission of the program is to contribute to the development of higher education in the 
regions mentioned above by increasing academics' capacity to introduce innovative, 
regionally relevant courses, modern teaching approaches and new academic areas in the 
curricula of their home universities. 
The competition is open to individuals and groups for 10 month grants, which include 
monthly individual stipends, an allowance for book purchases, teaching materials, 
photocopying, etc., as well as additional travel costs and administrative expenses in the case 
of group grants. 
The year! y call for proposals is announced each year in September/October. CDC grantees 
are selected through a competitive application process. All grantees are required to 
participate in two training workshops on course design and teaching methodology. The 
course development budget proposals are negotiated individually before the first workshop or 
during grantees' first visit to Budapest. 
The Course Development Competition "Call for Proposals 2007" states: 
Eligibility 
Application is restricted to resident citizens of the non EU member states in Eastern- and 
Southeastern Europe, the Former Soviet Union and Mongolia who are teaching at a 
university in any country of this region. Citizens of new EU member states are eligible only 
if: 
• they propose courses on Roma related issues. 
• they participate in group projects with colleagues from non-EU countries (in fact such 
collaborative proposals are strongly encouraged). In such group projects the group 
leader must come from the non-EU country. 
* * * 
Requirements for applicants 
All applicants should show how they intend to apply new teaching methodology to delivering 
the course. 
• Project proposals should demonstrate the following: 
• potential to contribute to curriculum reform at host departments 
• innovative character and approach 
• potential of being incorporated into the university curriculum for longer term 
• relevance to regional or global issues 
• scientific quality in the selected field 
Page 7 
• feasibility 
Requirements for grantees 
1. At the end of their grant period, all grantees (groups) are expected to submit a final 
syllabus for the new course they have developed and taught, together with a final 
financial report .... 
2. All accepted applicants are required to attend two modular workshops: one workshop 
at the beginning of their grant period, (focusing on issues regarding course design, 
assessment evaluation and course portfolio), and another before their teaching period 
(covering matters regarding course implementation and evaluation). The exact dates 
will be confirmed and announced later for selected applicants. 
3. Production of Course Portfolio .... 
The preceding information indicates that "[alll grantees are required to participate in two training 
workshops on course design and teaching methodology." Further, we cannot conclude that 
demonstrating a proposed educational course's potential to contribute to curriculum reform at host 
departments, innovative character and approach, potential of being incorporated into the university 
curriculum for longer term, relevance to regional or global issues, scientific quality in the selected 
field, and feasibility constitutes excellent achievement in the field of endeavor. 
stating 
that in 1999 the petitioner "was given a grant of 2,156.00 USD according to the Higher Education 
Support Program to carry out project - "Course of Lecturers in Political Science." The record does 
not include evidence from the Open Society Georgia Foundation providing information regarding 
the significance of the preceding grant. 
With regard to the project grants the petitioner received from the CRC and the Open Society Georgia 
Foundation, we note that these grants simply funded her development of the proposed university 
courses. Every researcher or educator, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from 
somewhere. Obviously the potential, quality, and feasibility of the proposed project are a factor in grant 
funding. The funding institution has to be assured that the proposed course will be of some benefit to 
the applicant's university. Nevertheless, a course development grant is principally designed to fund 
future work, and not to recognize past excellence in the field of endeavor. While the petitioner has 
received financial support and training for developing various university courses, such educational 
grants do not equate to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
political science, history, or education. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements ()f their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Page 8 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
so showing that she is a "Developing World Member" of 
the American Political Science Association (APSA) and that she participated in the APSA' s 2008 
Teaching & Learning Conference. The program book for the APSA's 2008 conference identifies the 
petitioner as "Not Presenting." In response to the director's for evidence, the petitioner 
submitted an 2008 letter from 
stating that the petitioner "joined over 300 colleagues 
... on February to at the fifth annual APSA Conference on Teaching and Learning in 
Political Science" and that she submitted a paper entitled "Simulation in teaching democratic values 
and citizenship in the Civic Engagement Track." does not specify the APSA's 
membership requirements. In this case, there is no (such as bylaws or official rules of 
admission) showing that the APSA and the Faculty Academic Council require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in her 
field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this 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. An alien would not eam acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would ~ualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers. 
4 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 io a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance. cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 9 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an article entitled "Being 
in power is not a privilege ... " The date and name of the publication were not identified as required 
by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. Further, there is no evidence (such as objective 
circulation information) showing that the article was in a professional or major trade publication or 
some other form of . media. The also submitted a June 2007 article in 
entitled This article contains the petitioner's 
political analysis regarding the Adjarian Government, but the article is not about her. Further, the 
author of the article was not identified as the language of this regulatory criterion. 
Moreover, there is no evidence showing a professional or major trade publication 
or some other form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
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 allied .field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted a March 
"This letter is to confirm that [the is a member of 
does not specify the nature of the petitioner's work for the 
The plain language of the regulation requires "[ e ]vidence of the alien's participation ... as a 
judge of the work of others." There is no documentary evidence showing the petitoner's participation 
as a judge of the work of others while serving as a member of the If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater 
to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). In this instance, 
letter lacks specificity and details, and is unsupported by any corroborative 
evidence demonstrating the petitioner's participation as a judge of the work of others. On appeal, 
the petitioner states: "The membership of Academic l Clouncil of University mean r sic] that 1 am 
granted the right to evaluate other scientist's [sic] papers." The record, however, does not include 
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has scientists' papers 
since becoming a faculty member at in 2006. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojfici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of'Treasure Crafi of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972». 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a July 26, 2006 certificate 
from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) stating: "Certificate was 
given to [the petitioner] from July 10 up to July 25, 2006 for Monitoring of Unified National 
Examinations." There is no evidence showing that monitoring Unified National Examinations for 
USAID equates to "participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others." 
The preceding certificate does not specify the nature of the petitioner's work as a monitor or the names 
of the individuals she judged. 
Page 10 
entitled 
An excerpt from the 
identifies the petitioner as "Reviewer" and "Candidate of Historical Sciences" and 
as "Editor." The petitioner has thus documented her review of a single monograph by 
in 1999. Consistent with the statutory requirement for "extensive documentation" at 
section 203(b)(I)(A)(i), the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) expressly requires evidence of 
participation as a judge of the work of "others" in the plural. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that she meets the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion through 
review of only one person's work. Additional deficiencies pertaining to the preceding evidence will 
be addressed below in our final merits determination regarding whether the submitted evidence is 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim, or being among that small percentage at 
the very top of the field of endeavor. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted various letters of support from her professional and educational contacts. 
I first got acquainted with [the petitioner's] research work when she made a presentation at 
the Annual Conference of American Studies at Tbilisi State University in 2004. Her paper 
entitled made a great impression on me 
for two main points: full command of the scientific literature, and originality and 
extraordinary skills of the presented issues to the audience. Since then I have taken a deep 
personal interest in her researches and pedagogical activities. She is prominent among 
Georgian academics as an outstanding expert in the field of politics, particularly in American 
Studies and a skillful teacher who is permanently invited to deliver public lectures to 
different universities in Georgia and abroad. I should say that she has always been 
distinguished by responsibility and interest towards her scientific activity. 
* * * 
I highly recommend her as a leading researcher and a notable contributor to the field of 
political science whose professional activity shows a rare combination of research and 
pedagogical skill. 
With regard to the petitioner's conference papers, there is no evidence showing that they have had an 
impact in the field beyond the confines of sessions in which they were presented. For instance, the 
record does not include objective documentation (such as frequent citation by independent scholars) 
demonstrating the influence that her work has had on political science scholars in the field at large. 
Page II 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that her conference papers equate to original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
states: 
As the dean of the faculty of Social Sciences, Business and Law, it is my pleasant duty to 
provide this letter to confirm, that Associate Professor [the petitioner] has been working at 
1996. 
A creative approach to teaching that reaches beyond the standard formula, her multiple 
teaching formats, including open discussion, debate, and group class presentations keep her 
classes lively and entertaining while at the same time maintaining high academic standards 
by requiring students to apply sophisticated analysis to issues. 
In addition to her classroom excellence, [the petitioner I has made an important contribution 
to enriching political science department curriculum. At the same time, knowledge and skills 
gained through different fellowships and trainings she shares to students and colleagues. 
As the member of American Political Science Association Professor [the petitioner] is invited 
attend the Teaching and Conference to the paper titled _ 
(22124 February, San Jose, 
University and I am sure she will 
contribute to the conference with her paper and will enrich pedagogical skills to be shared to 
colleagues and students. 
While the petitioner is admired for her work at 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § requires original 
significance in the field" rather than contributions limited to her immediate eIIlplU 
no evidence that the s conference paper 
is widely acknowledged by incleplwclent 
scholars as an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
I was present at [the petitioner's] presentation of her paper at the Teaching and Learning 
Conference sponsored by the American Political Science Association. I am also on the 
Teaching and Learning Committee of the APSA. 
[The petitioner's 1 paper was an important contribution to our deliberations and demonstrated 
the great work which she is doing in Georgia. We have been so pleased to have her as a part 
of our deliberations. Her work in Georgia is an inspiration to us all. 
Page 12 
Professor _ opines that the petitioner's paper was an "important contribution" to the 
deliberations at the APSA's conference, but he does not specifically identify her original political 
science contributions or provide examples of how they have influenced others in the field. 
states: 
I am pleased to provide this reference letter for [the petitioner] whom I know since spring 
2001, when she first attended a one-week course development workshop that our Curriculum 
Resource Center and the Central European University's Nationalism department co­
organized. [The petitioner's J outstanding contribution to sessions focusing on both the 
content and methodology of teaching political science at universities made us establish a 
long-term cooperation with her: we have offered her two IO-month grants in course 
development (the first in 2003 and the second in 2006) to develop two innovative courses at 
her department, entitled "Nationalism in Contemporary World Politics" and "Democratic 
Theory and Practice." Our colleagues for the CEU Summer University have also found her 
application for their 2002 summer course "Intercultural citizenship" of outstanding quality 
and offered her a funded place. 
[The petitioner] has been selected to our various projects by an international committee of 
political science professors, based on the following criteria: outstanding personal academic 
achievements in the discipline (in both research and teaching), willingness to reform 
university teaching, openness towards introducing cutting edge university courses and 
innovative approaches in teaching political sciences. 
I am firmly convinced that [the petitioner] is a good example of a "Scholar in the 
Classroom," a concept that our center aims to develop in post-communist higher education 
systems: she brings her own high-level academic research into the classroom, forming a 
bridge between the state of the art in the discipline of political science and the learning 
experience, offering to her students access to cutting-edge developments in the field. 
There is no evidence showing that the political science courses developed by the petitioner have 
been implemented anywhere other than her employing university or that they otherwise equate to 
original contributions of major significance in the field. 
states: 
I have known [the petitioner] since 2004 when I worked with her when she was a visiting 
fellow at my school, Fairfield University in Fairfield, Connecticut. She is an outstanding 
political scientist with a strong work ethic. I was impressed by her dedication and 
scholarship. She is a very good teacher who was well respected by her students and her 
peers. 
* * * 
Page 13 
[The petitioner] has been a member of the American Political Science Association since 2006 
and she has served at New School University. She has also worked 
professionally 
Professor describes the petitioner as a "good teacher," but his letter does not provide specific 
examples of how the petitioner's original work has significantly influenced the field of political 
sCIence. 
states: 
It is my great honor and pleasure to write a letter of evaluation of the presentation I the 
petitioner] made at American Political Science Association's 5th Teaching and Leaning 
Conference on February 22, 2008. I shared the panel, "Civic Engagement from an 
International Perspective" with [the petitioner], and joined an enthusiastic discussion after 
her presentation. 
In her paper, entitled 
••• [the petitioner] shed on merit of introducing experiential aspect into the 
political education. I myself conducted research on American democratic assistance to 
transitional countries in the late 1990s, and found the difficulty of transforming the image 
and meaning of politics as well as appreciated the importance of encouraging young people 
to proactively engage in the public space. Moreover, the social context of political education 
in Georgia has much similarity with that of Japan, while makes quite a contrast to American 
case. Although political education at universities shares certain common challenges, we also 
need to form our educational programs sensitive to such historical and cultural differences. 
In that sense, [the petitioner's] paper made a valuable contribution to the panel. 
Besides her presentation, [the petitioner] was an active participant throughout the conference, 
providing divergent viewpoint to the discussion made predominantly of American 
participants. Being one of a few non-American participants myself, I found her enthusiasm 
to get engaged with fellow participants and to exchange opinions quite encouraging. 
states that the petitioner's paper entitled 
made a valuable contribution to the civic engagement panel at the 
conference, but he does not specifically identify the aspects of her findings that were original 
or discuss how they have impacted others in the political science field. 
-
states: 
I am writing on behalf of [the petitioner] who has interned in my office for approximately 
two semesters. 
[The petitioner] is a very intelligent and kind lady who is well grounded and functions well in 
a public office. [The petitioner 1 is intent about her work and has a sincere desire to 
Page 14 
understand and demonstrate her skills. She has experience in the area of Constituent 
Services in my office and has mastered research, resolution and written communication of 
constituent concerns. She also works well with others and accepts constructive criticism. 
[The petitioner] has become a welcomed and valued member of my staff. She is interested in 
her work and performs it well. She has an excellent understanding of government and will 
be an asset in the field of Government Services. 
There is the Congressman has impacted the field 
beyond Once again, a contribution to one's 
workplace is not necessarily an original contribution of major significance in the field. In this 
instance, the petitioner has not established that her local constituent services work 
_ constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
states: 
I have known [the ['UHUJH"'] since 1999 and she was one of the most active applicants or the 
and participated in number of grant 
competitions announced by the OSGF. 
For the last 10 years [the petitioner I has been trying to improve the teaching methods for 
political science at the She is very motivated and consistently tries 
to introduce novel teaching methods. In 2000 she won an OSGF grant for developing and 
introducing new curricula in Georgia's higher education system. 
Political science has been offered at Georgian Higher Education Institutions since 1990-
1991. With a support of the Ministry of Education of Georgia, a number of books and 
guidelines have been published in this regard. Even though political science is being taught 
at our universities there is no single comprehensive program to cover the discipline. Thus, 
I the petitioner] has contributed significantly to the development of political science curricula 
at 
While working on curricula of political science, [the petitioner] has also participated 
professional development scholarships offered by the Central European University (CEU­
HESP) programs and U.S. Department of States Programs (JFDP, IREX). 
[The petitioner] was eminently recognized by her strong academic background. [The 
petitioner's] ability to relate effectively and engagingly with others, as both a colleague and a 
supervisor, ensure her success. She has an insightful approach towards her responsibilities 
and obligations. The applicant is an effective researcher and dedicated to her work. She has 
been doing a research on democracy in theory and practice. Furthermore, she has developed 
courses in Political Theory, Democracy: Theory and Practice, Nationalism and Globalization. 
-Page 15 
I appreciate [the petitioner's 1 choice to participate in Columbia University internship 
program. I sincerely urge you to give her the opportunity to demonstrate her marvelous 
potential. I have no doubt that the applicant's skills and talents will put her in good standing 
as a Columbia University intern and that she will thrive in such a rigorous academic setting. 
With regard to comments, it is not enough to be skilled and talented and to have 
others attest to one's "potential." An alien must have already demonstrably impacted the field in 
order to meet this regulatory criterion. As previously discussed, there is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner's teaching methodologies and political science curricula have been implemented anywhere 
other than Further, letter does not 
provide specific examples indicating how the petitioner's research on democracy in theory and 
practice has significantly impacted others in her field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We 
must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some 
meaning. While the petitioner's work is admired by her references, the submitted documentation 
does not establish that it equates to original contributions of "major significance" in the field. For 
example, the record does not indicate the extent to which her work has impacted independent 
scholars in her field, nor does it show that the field as a whole has significantly changed as a result 
of her work. 
The preceding reference letters are not without weight and have been considered above. uscrs 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
of Caron International, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). 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; 
uscrs may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. 
See id. at 795-796; 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"). Thus, the content of the experts' 
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 
political scholar or historian who has made original contributions of "major significance." Without 
supporting evidence showing that the petitioner's work equates to original contributions of major 
significance in her field, we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in proFessional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her authorship of two monographs entitled •••••• 
(2003) and (2000), but the English language translations accompanying them 
were incomplete and not certified by the translator. Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied 
by a full English language translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and 
by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into 
-Page 16 
English. Further, there is no evidence demonstrating that these monographs qualify as professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that 
she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that her conference presentations and workshops satisfy this 
criterion. The petitioner's field, however, is not in the arts. The plain language of this regulatory 
criterion indicates that it applies to visual artists (such as sculptors and painters) rather than 
historians or political scientists. The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different 
areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peiformed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
petition.er has been working at 
since 1996. Further, Professor 
states that the petitioner served as an intern 
•••• 11 and worked professionally at in 2001. In addition, 
_ letter indicates that the petitioner interned in his office for approximately two semesters. 
Finally, the letter from mentions the petitioner's participation in a Columbia 
University internship program. 
There is no supporting evidence showing that the preceding institutions have a distinguished 
reputation. As previously discussed, 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. at 165. While the has performed admirably as an ••••••••••• 
the submitted evidence does not demonstrate how her role 
differentiated her from the other professors employed by her university, let alone its full professors and 
administrative there is no evidence that her subordinate internships at 
office, and 
rpoo,,1 to the petitioner's work 
is no organizational chart or other evidence docume:n..!i~ 
position fell within the general hierarchy of their lilLUllV. 
specify the petitioner's duties and responsibilities at 
The documentation submitted by the petitioner does that she was responsible for the 
preceding institutions' success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or 
critical role." Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
Page 17 
The petitioner 2008 letter from the "Chief of the Service of Human 
Resource Management" stating that "her monthly salary 
consist of 600 (six hundred) GEL." On appeal, the petitioner states: 'The average salary in Georgia 
at this time was 120-150 GEL .... So my salary excluding grants and benefits alone was 4 times 
above national average." The record, however, does not include national average salary data for the 
country of Georgia to support the petitioner's assertion. As previously discussed, 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. at 165. Nevertheless, the national 
average salary for Georgian workers in general is not an appropriate basis for comparison. The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of a high salary "in 
relation to others in the field." In this instance, there is no objective salary data for history and 
political science professors on which to rely as a proper basis for comparison. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that her salary was significantly high in relation to others in her particular 
field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). A final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence follows. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct 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 thelirJ field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 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." Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. In the present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the 
petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (ix). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv), the petitIOner has not 
established that her review of a single monograph in 1999 demonstrates sustained national or 
international acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that she is among that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ II53(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3). Peer review of manuscripts is a routine 
element of the process by which articles are selected for publication in scholarly journals. Normally 
a journal's editorial staff will enlist the assistance of professionals in the field who agree to review 
Page 18 
submitted papers. It is common for a publication to ask several reviewers to review a manuscript 
and to offer comments. The publication's editorial staff may accept or reject any reviewer's 
comments in determining whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Without evidence that sets 
the petitioner apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has received and completed 
independent requests for review from a substantial number of journals or served in an editorial 
position for a distinguished journal as of the petition's filing date, we cannot conclude that her level 
of peer review is commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of 
the field of endeavor. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(vii), there is no evidence showing 
that the petitioner's participation in APSA conferences equates to evidence of achievements and 
recognition commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her 
field. In the scholarly community, acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of presenting 
one's work at an academic conference along with numerous other participants. Nothing in the 
record indicates that the presentation of one's work is unusual in the petitioner's field or that 
invitation to present at venues where her work appeared was a privilege extended to only a few top 
political science researchers. Many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposia to 
present new work, discuss new findings, and network with other professionals. These conferences 
are promoted and sponsored by professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and 
government agencies. In this case, the petitioner has not established that her participation in such 
events demonstrates a level of achievement that sets her apart from almost all other scholars in her 
field nationally or internationally. 
While the petitioner has earned the respect and admiration of her references, the evidence of record 
falls short of demonstrating her sustained national or international acclaim as a researcher historian, 
political scientist, and educator. The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the 
aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
C. Continuing work in the area of expertise in the United States 
Beyond the decision of the director, the statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to 
continue work in her area of expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, 
8 U.S.c. § lI53(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). Such evidence may include letter(s) from 
prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
from the petitioner detailing plans on how she intends to continue his work in the United States. On 
the Form 1-140, the petitioner failed to provide any information in Part 6, "Basic information about 
the proposed employment." Further, the Form G-325A, Biographic Information, submitted in 
conjunction with the petitioner's Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust 
Status, does not specify where the petitioner has worked in the United States since her arrival February 
2008. In this case, the petitioner has not submitted letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of 
prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement detailing plans on how she intends to 
continue working in the United States. The February 20, 2008 letter from states 
Page 19 
that the petitioner "interned" in his office for approximately two semesters, but his letter does 
discuss her prospective employment with his office or explain how she will continue to work in her 
area of expertise in the United States in the future. Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted 
"clear evidence" that she will continue to work in her area of expertise in the United States. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(5). 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent 
that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international 
level. Further, the petitioner has not submitted clear evidence demonstrating that she will continue to 
work in her area of expertise in the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)( 1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, fnc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, affd, 345 
F.3d at 683; see a/so So/tane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate 
review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.