dismissed EB-1A Case: Film

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.s. Citizenshipandhumigrmionservice
Administrative Appeals office t AAO)
20 MassachusensAve.. N.W., Ms 2090
Washingwn. DC 20.i29-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: AUG 1 5 20120FFICE: NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetition for Alien Worker as an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto the office thatoriginally decidedyour case. Please
headvisedthat any further inquiry thatyou might haveconcerningyour casemustbe madeto thatolTice.
If youbelievetheAAO inappropriatelyappliedthelaw in reachingits decision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyou wish to haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen
in accordancewith theinstructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a feeof S630.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled
within 30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou.
PerryRhew
Chief, Administrative AppealsOffice
www.users.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The employment-basedimmigrantvisa petitionwas deniedby the Director,
NebraskaServiceCenter,on.lune15,2011,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice
(AAO)onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an employment-basedunmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alien of extraordinaryability as a film directorand writer. The directordeterminedthat the
petitionerhad not establishedthe requisiteextraordinaryability andfailed to submitextensive
documentationof sustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressset a very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiring throughthe
statutethat the petitioner demonstrate"sustainednational or internationalacclaim" and present
"extensivedocumentation"of his or herachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct and8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement,
specificallya major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthe receiptof suchan award,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificevidence.8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). The
petitionermustsubmitqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof
evidencetoestablishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
At thetimeof theoriginalfiling of thepetition,counselsubmitteddocumentationandindicatedthat
"it is ratherdifricult tocategorizetheabovelistof evidenceintoclear-cutcriteria"butclaimedthat
the petitionerwaseligible for the membershipcriterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii),the publishedmaterial criterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),thejudgingcriterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3),the
originalcontributionscr tenonpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v),theartistic
displaycriterionpursuantto theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii),theleadingor criticalrole
criterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii),andthecommercialsuccesses
enterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(x). However,counselfailed to
specificallyidentifywhich documentationrelatedto thecriteriaunderthe regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3). It was not apparentfrom the review of theevidenceto which criteria theevidence
pertained.Theburdenis on thepetitionerto establisheligibility andnoton thedirectorto inferor
second-guesstheintendedcriteria.
The director issueda requestfor additionalevidencepursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(8)describingeachof thetencriteriaundertheregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)and
indicatedthat the petitionerfailed to submit any documentaryevidenceregardingthe awards
criterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),the membershipcriterion,the
judging criterion, the scholarly articles criterion pursuantto the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi),theartisticdisplaycriterion,thehighsalarycriterionpursuantto theregulationat
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix),and the commercialsuccessescriterion. In addition,the director
indicatedthatthedocumentaryevidencewasinsufficientto establisheligibility for thepublished
materialcriterion,theoriginalcontributionscriterion,andtheleadingor criticalrolecriterion.
Page3
In responseto the director's request for additional evidence. counsel submitted additional
documentationbutfailedto identifytheintendedcriteria,aswell asidentifyingwhichdocuments,if
any, pertainedto the specific criteria. Basedon the submitteddocumentation,the director
determinedin herdecisionthatthepetitionerfailedtoestablisheligibility for thepublishedmaterial
criterion,theoriginalcontributionscriterion,andtheleadingor criticalrolecriterion. Further,the
directorindicatedthatthepetitionerfailedto submitanydocumentaryevidencefor thescholarly
articlescriterion.
Onappeal,counselclaimsthatthedirector"consideredonly fourof thetencriteriasetforth in 8
CFR§ 204.5(h)(3),anddidnotproperlyapplythesubmittedevidencetothecriteria." However,on
appeal,counselagain fails to specifically indicate which additionalcriteria the petitioner
purportedlymeetsand how the evidencepertainsto thosespecificcriteria. In fact,on appeal,
counselonlyreferencestheoriginalcontributionscriterionandtheleadingor criticalrolecriterion.
Onceagain,theburdenis on thepetitionerto establisheligibility andnoton theAAO to infer or
second-guessthe intendedcriteria. If it is counsel'scontentionthat the documentaryevidence
meetsadditionalanddifferentcriteria,he hasneverexplainedwhich criteria theyareand how the
evidencerelatesto thosecriteria. A passingreferencewithout substantiveargumentsis insufficient
to raisethat groundon appeal.Desravinesv. U.S.Arty. Gen.,343 Fed.Appx.433,435 (11* Cir.
2009).
TheAAO notesherethatin thedirector'sdecisionregardingthepublishedmaterialcriterion,she
erroneouslybut innocentlyreferredto thepetitioner'sfield as"hospitalmedicine." While counsel
raisesthisissueonappeal,thedirectorreferencedthepetitioner'soccupationasa film directorand
writer throughoutherdecisionandthoroughlyevaluatedthe petitioner'sdocumentaryevidenceand
concludedthat the petitionerfailed to submit documentaryevidenceof the petitioner'ssustained
nationalor internationalacclaimasa film directorandwriter. Notwithstanding,it would serveno
usefulpurposeto remandthe casesimplyfor the directorto correcthererroneousandinnocent
referenceto thepetitioner'sfield.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,inpertinentpart,that:
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available. . . to qualified
immigrantswho are aliensdescribedin any of the following subparagraphs(A)
through(C):
(A) Aliens with extraordinaryability. - An alien is describedin this
subparagraphif --
(i) thealienhasextraordinaryability in thesciences.
arts,education,business,or athleticswhichhasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednationalor international
acclaim and whose achievementshave been
Page4
recognized in the field through extensive
documentation,
(ii) the alien seeksto enter the United Statesto
continuework in theareaof extraordinaryability, and
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill
substantiallybenefitprospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices(USCIS)and legacyImmigrationandNaturalization
Service(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta veryhighstandardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723 101"Cong.,2d
Sess.59 (1990):56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29. 1991),Theterm"extraordinaryability"
refersonlytothoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisentotheverytopof thefieldof
endeavor.Id.; 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).
The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)requiresthat the petitionerdemonstratethe aliens
sustainedacclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbe
estaNishedeither through evidenceof a one-time achievement(that is, a major, international
recognizedaward)or throughthesubmissionof qualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten
categoriesof evidencelistedat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinthCircuit (NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof a
petitionfiledunderthisclassification. v.USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010).Although
the court upheldthe AAO's decisionto deny the petition, the court took issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meeta givenevidentiarycriterion) With respectto thecriteria
at 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and (vi), the court concludedthat while USCISmay haveraised
legitimateconcernsaboutthe significanceof the evidencesubmittedto meet thosetwo criteria,
thoseconcernsshouldhavebeenraisedin a subsequent"final meritsdetermination." Id. at I121.
22.
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO's evaluationrestedon animproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to count the types of evidenceprovided(which the AAO did)." and if the
petitionerfailedtosubmitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed
to satisfythe regulatoryrequirementof threetypes of evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at
i I22(citingto8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)).
Thus, Kazariansetsforth a two-partapproachwherethe evidenceis first countedand then
consideredin thecontextof a final meritsdetermination.In thismatter,theAAO will reviewthe
evidenceundertheplainlanguagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed.As thepetitionerdidnot
1Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantiveor evidentiary requirements
beyondthosesetforthin theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page5
submitqualifying evidenceunderat leastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis that thepetitioner
hasfailedto satisfytheregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
II. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Publishedmaterial about the alien in professionalor major tradepublicationsor
othermajormedia.relatingto thealien's work in thefieldfor whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshall im:ludethe title, date,and author of thematerial,and
am necessarytrwaslation.
As indicatedabove,onappeal,counseldid notcontestthedecisionof thedirectorfor thiscriterion.
However.counseldidreferencenewspaperarticlesregardinghisclaimsof thepetitioner'seligibility
for theoriginalcontributionscriterionandtheleadingor criticalrolecriterion. As such,theAAO
will evaluatethatevidencetodeterminewhetherthenewspaperarticlesmeetthepublishedmaterial
CrlterlOn.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires1p]ublished material
about the alien in professionalor major tradepublicationsor other major media.relating to the
alien's work in the field for which classificationis sought." In general,in order for published
material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in the
regulations,beprintedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.To qualify
asmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor internationaldistribution.Some
newspapers,suchastheNewYorkTimes,nominallyserveaparticularlocalitybut would qualify as
major media becauseof significant nationaldistribution, unlike small local community papers
Furthermore,theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204,5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthat"[sluch
evidenceshallincludethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,andanynecessarytranslation
A review of the record of proceedingreflects that the petitionersubmittedthe following
documentation:
1. An articleentitled
" November15.2000,unidentifiedauthor..YonhapNewspaper;
2. An article entitled. ' June2, 2001,
unidentifiedauthor,Korea Times;
On appeal,thepetitionerdoesnot claim to meetany of the regulatorycategoriesof evidencenot discussedin ibis
decision.
Even with nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmust be given to the placementof the article. For
example,an article thatappearsin the WashingtonPost, but in a sectionthat is distributedonly in Fairfax County,
Virginia, for instance,cannotserveto spreadan individual's reputationoutsideof thatcounty.
Page6
3. An article entitled
April 17,2000,unidentifiedauthor,KoreaTimes;and
4. An article entitled November
i1, l999,unidentifiedauthor,KoreaTimes.
Regardingitem 1,thepetitionerfailedto includetheauthorof thematerialasrequiredpursuant
to theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).Moreover,thearticleis abouttherockgroup,
ratherthanaboutthepetitionerrelatingto hiswork. In fact,thearticleonlymentions
thepetitioneronetimeasbeingthedirectorof therockgroup'smusicvideo. Thearticledoes
not reflectpublishedmaterialaboutthepetitionerrelatingto hisworkconsistentwith theplain
languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Furthermore,while the petitioner
submitteda screenshotfrom YonhapNewAgency'swebsite,thepetitionerfailedto submitany
independent,objectiveevidenceestablishingthat the YonhapNewspaperis a professionalof
majortradepublicationor othermajormedia.SeeBraga v.Poulos,No. CV 065105 SJO(C. D.
CA July6,2007)aff d 2009WL 604888(9thCÍr.2009)(ConCludingthattheAAO did nothave
to rely on self-servingassertionsonthecoverof amagazineasto themagazine'sstatusasmajor
media).
Regardingitem 2 - 4, the petitionerfailed to include the authorsof the materialas required
pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In addition,the articlesareaboutthe
Inter-KoreanMotor Rally ratherthan aboutthe petitionerrelatingto his work in the field.
Althoughthearticlesreflecta few quotationsby the petitionerregardingthemotorrally, the
articlesdo notreflectjournalisticcoverageaboutthepetitionerrelatingto hiswork pursuantto
theplainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§2(¼.5(h)(3)(iii).Articlesthatarenotaboutthe
petitionerdonotmeetthisregulatorycriterion.See,e.g.,Negro-Plumpev.Okin,2:07-CV-820-
ECR-RJJat * l, *7 (D. Nev.Sept.8, 2008)(upholdinga findingthatarticlesabouta showare
not about the actor). Furthermore,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requires"[p]ublishedmaterialaboutthealienin professionalor majortrade
publications or other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which
classificationis sought[emphasisadded]." Thearticlesareaboutthemotorcarrally andthe
relationshipbetweenNorth and SouthKorearatherthanaboutthe petitioner'sfield of film
directingandwriting. SeeLeev. LN.S.,237 F. Supp.2d 914(N.D. Ill. 2002)(upholdinga
finding that competitiveathleticsandcoachingare not within the sameareaof expertise).
Moreover,while the petitionersubmitteda screenshotfrom the Korea Times'website,the
petitioner failed to submit any independent,objective evidenceestablishingthat the Korea
Timesis a professionalof majortradepublicationor othermajormedia. SeeBraga v. Poulos,
No.CV 065105SJOaff d 2009WL 604888(concludingthattheAAO did nothaveto relyon
self-servingassertionson thecoverof amagazineasto themagazine'sstatusasmajormedia).
As discussedabove,theplain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requires
"[p]ublishedmaterialaboutthealienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajor
media,relatingto thealien's work in the field for which classificationis sought." In this case.
Page7
the petitioner'sdocumentaryevidencefails to reflect publishedmaterialabouthim relatingto
hiswork in professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof the alien's original scientific,scholarly. artistic, athletic, or business-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
On appeal,counselclaimsthe petitioner'seligibility for this criterion basedon his role with South
Korea's "Sunshine Poliev." his invitation to attend the Korean Film Festival in Los Angeles,
California(KOFFLA),hisupcomingfilm project,andrecommendationletters.
Theplainlanguageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v)requires1e]videnceof thealien's
originalscientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-relatedcontributionsof majorsignificance
in the field." Here,theevidencemustbereviewedto seewhetherit risesto the levelof original
artistic-relatedcontributions"of majorsignificancein thefield." Thephrase"major significance"is
notsuperfluousand,thus,it hassomemeaning.Silvermanv.EastrichMultiple InvesturFund,LP.,
51F.3d28,31(3'dCir. 1995)quotedinAPWUv.Potter,343F.3d6]9, 626(2"dCir.Sep15,2003).
Regardingthe "SunshinePolicy," the petitionersubmitteda documententitled. "Peaceand
CooperationWhite Paperon KoreanUnification" authoredby theMinistry of Unification,Republic
of Korea that briefly indicated that "[Wooinbang CommunicationsCo.] discussedwith North
Korea'sAsia-PacificPeaceCommittee(APPC)and the Committeefor NationalReconciliation
(CNR) anautorally in the Mt. Kumgangarea." In addition,thepetitionersubmittedanarticle from
the InternationalJournal ofKorean Unification Studiesthat briefly indicatedthat ··[iln the year
2000,[WooinhangCommunicationsCo.] sponsoredan autorally in the Mt. Geumgangareafrom
July3-4." Finally.thepetitionersubmittedthepreviouslymentionedthreearticlesdiscussedunder
thepublishedmaterialcriterion. The articlesreflectquotationsfrom thepetitionerwho statedthat
"[t]he rally aimsto promotethereconciliationandunity of our nationandto awakenyoungpeople's
desire for reunilication." "[t]he inter-Koreanrally was conceivedto open the way for national
unification,"and"I wantto bringNorthKoreaasmuchcapitalistsportaspossible."It is notedthat
counselsubmittedphotographsclaimingthat they reflectednationaltelevisioncoverageof press
conferencesfor theevent.
It is furthernotedthaton appealcounselclaimedthat "[the petitioner]appliedall his directorial
skills andwasengagedin all stagesof planningandexecutionof thetelecast." Ilowever.therecord
of proceedingfails to containanydocumentaryevidenceestablishingthattheeventwas televised,
let alone how the petitioner used his directorial skills to plan and executethe telecast. The
unsupportedstatementsof counselon appealor in a motion are not evidenceand thus are not
entitledtoanyevidentiaryweight.SeeINSv.Phinpathya,464U.S.183,188-89n.6(1984).
Notwithstanding,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)requires
"[elvidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly,artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributionsof major significancein the field [emphasisadded]." As discussedunder the
Page8
publishedmaterialcriterion, althoughthe petitioner,through his communicationscompany,was
involved in organizingthe motor car rally, thereis no indicationthat the petitioner'sinvolvement
wasin his field of film directingandwriting; ratherthemotorcarrally waspolitical for thepurpose
of unifying NorthandSouthKorea. Thereis no evidenceindicatingthattheeventremotelyrelates
to the petitioner's tield of'lilm directingand writing. SeeLee w LN.S.,237 F. Supp.2d at 914
(upholdinga finding that competitiveathleticsand coachingare not within the sameareaof
expertise).The petitionerfailed to demonstratethathis participationin organizingamotorcarrally
isanoriginalcontributionof artistic-relatedcontributionof majorsignificance"in thefield."
R rdin the elitioner's invitation to attend KOFFLA, the petitioner submitteda letter from
Directorof KOFFLA,invitingthepetitionerto attendthefestival. However,
thepetitionerfailedto submitanydocumentaryevidencedemonstratingthatheactuallyattended
KOFFLA. Moreover,evenif thepetitionerdid attendthefestival,participationin suchanevent,
however,doesnotequateto anoriginal contributionof majorsignificancein thefield. Thereis no
evidenceshowingthatthe petitionerhasmadeany originalcontributionsto KOFFLA,let alone
originalcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield asawhole. Simplybeinginvitedto attenda
festival is insufficient without documentaryevidence reHecting that the petitioner's actual
attendanceand participationresultedin original contributionsof major significancein the field
consistentwith theplain languageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Regardingthe petitioner'supcomingfilm projects,the petitionersubmitteddocumentaryevidence
reflectingthe petitioneris trying to makea movie, . The
petitionersubmitteda letterfrom , ExecutivePro ucerat ony ictures ntertanment,
Inc.,whostatedthat"it hastremendouspotentialfor domesticandinternationalsuccessemphasis
added|" In addition.thepetitionersubmitteda letterof intentfi'om
who statedthatthestoryhas"greatinternationalexploitationpotential [emphasisadded]." Further,
the petitionersubmitteda letterfrom who statedthat the movie"will be an
outstandingbusinessdeal for your com any to be involved in [emphasisaddedb" Also, the
petitionersubmitteda letter from who statedthatthe film "will opennew venuefor
AsianAmericanyoungpeople[em 1asisa ]." Moreover,counselclaimedonappealthat"the
film promisesto beonemajorartistic,political,andeconomicsignificance[emphasisadded]"and
"[the petitioner's}film will havesignificant social and artistic impact by bringing this history to
light[emphasisadded]."
A petitionercannotfile a petition underthis classificationbasedon the expectationof future
eligibility. Giventhedescriptionsin termsof futureapplicabilityanddeterminationsthatmayoccur
at a laterdate,it appearsthatthepetitioner'smovie hasnot beenmadeandis still ongoing. In fact,
counselclaimed that the movie was "well into the pre-productionstage" and
claimedthat if the petitioner'spetition is not approvedthe "movie will not bemade" The actual
presentimpact of the petitioner'swork hasnot beenestablished.Rather,the lettersandcounsel
speculateabout how the pctitioner'smovie may affect the field at somepoint in the future.
Eligibility must be establishedat the time of filing. 8 C.F.R.§§103.2(b)(1),(12). Whether
referencinganimmigrantor a nonimmigrantclassification,caselaw requiresthatanalienapplying
for a benefit, or a petitionerseekingan immigration statusfor a beneficiary,must demonstrate
Page9
eligibility for thebenefitor thestatusat the time thepetition is filed. SeeMatter of Pazandeh,19
I&N Dec.884,886 (BIA 1989)(citing Matter of Atembe,19 I&N Dec.427, 429 (BIA 1986);
Matterof Drigo, 18l&N Dec.223,224-225(BIA 1982);Matterof Bardouille,18I&N Dec.I 14,
116(BIA 1981)).A petitionmaynotbeapprovedif thebeneficiaryor theself-petitionerwasnot
qualifiedat theprioritydate.SeeMatterofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.45,49 (Reg'lComm'r 1971);
seealsoMatterof'MichelinTire Cinp.. 17I&N Dec.248,249(Reg'l Comm'r 1978)regarding
nonimmigrantpetitions. The RegionalCommissionerin Matter of Wing's Tea/hmse.16I&N Dec.
158.160(Reg'l Comm'r 1977)emphasizesthe importanceof not obtaininga priority dateprior to
beingeligible, basedon future experience.This follows the policy of preventingaffectedparties
from securinga priority date in the hopethat they will subsequentlybe able lo demonstrate
eligibility. In fact. this principle has been extendedbeyondan alien's eligibility for the
classificationsought. Forexample,anemployermustestablishits ability to paytheprofferedwage
asof thedateof filing. SeeMatterof GreatWall,16I&N Dec.142,144-145(Act. Reg'lComm'r
1977),which providesthat a petitionshouldnot becomeapprovableundera newsetof facts.
Ultimately,in orderto be meritoriousin fact, a petitionmustmeetthe statutoryandregulatory
requirementsfor approvalasof thedateit wasfiled. Ogundipev.Mukasey,541F.3d257,261(4th
Cir. 2008). The assertionthat the petitioner'smovie will likely be influential is not adequateto
establishthathiswork hasalreadyrecognizedasa majorcontributionin thefield. While theletters
praisethepetitioncrs movieasgreatpotentialinterest,thefact remainsthatany measurableimpact
thatresultsfrom thepetitioner'smoviewill likely occurin thefuture.
Finally, regardingthefew recommendationletters,theyfail to indicatethathis contributionsareof
major significancein the field. The lettersprovideonly generalstatementswithout offering any
specificinformationto establishhow the petitioner'swork hasbeenof majorsignificance.For
instance statedthatthepetitioner"hasbeenwell maintaine ontributionsfor
thecommumty11roughhis passionandcreativityin Movie industries." failedto identify
thepetitioner'scontributionsandhow theyhavebeenafmajor significancein thetield. Thelackof
any specific informationoffers no evidenceof original contributionsof major significancein the
field.
Moreover, statedthat the petitioner "possessesan exceptionalunderstandingof
technologyan art,w uc amake[s}Him uniqueandoneof thetopvisualeffectssupervisorandartist
in theindustry Notwithstandingthatthepetitioner'sfield is film directingandwritingratherthan
visual effectssupervision,havinga diverseor uniqueskill set is not a contributionof major
significancein andof itself. Rather,therecordmustbesupportedby evidencethatthepetitioner
hasalreadyusedthoseuniqueskills to impactthe field at a significantlevel in anoriginalway.
Furthermore,assumingthepetitioner'sskills areunique,theclassificationsoughtwasnot designed
merelyto alleviateskill shortagesin a given field. In fact, that issueproperlyfalls underthe
jurisdictionof theDepartmentof Laborthroughthealienemploymentlaborcertificationprocess.
SeeMatterofNew YorkStateDep1 of7'ransp.,22 I&N Dec.215.221(Comm'r 1998k
Whilethefew letterspraisethepetitionerandhiswork, thereis insufficientdocumentaryevidence
demonstratingthatthepetitioner'swork isof majorsignificance.Thisregulatorycriterionnotonly
requiresthe petitionerto makeoriginal contributions,the regulatorycriterion also requiresthose
Page 10
contributionsto beof majorsignificance.TheAAO is not persuadedby vague,solicitedlettersthat
simply repeatthe regulatorylanguagebut do not explain how the petitioner'scontributionshave
alreadyinfluencedthefield. Vague,solicitedlettersfrom localcolleaguesthatdo notspecifically
identifycontributionsor providespecificexamplesof howthosecontributionsinfluencedthefield
areinsufficient. Kazarianv. USC/S,580 F.3d1030,1036(9thCir. 2009)affd in part 596 F.3d
1115(9th Cir. 2010). In 2010,theKazariancourtreiteratedthattheAAO'sconclusionthatthe
"lettersfrom physicsprofessorsattestingto [the petitioner's]contributionsin the field" were
insufficientwas"consistentwith therelevantregulatorylanguage."596 F.3dat 1122. Moreover,
thelettersconsideredaboveprimarilycontainbareassertionsof thepetitioner'sstatusin the field
withoutprovidingspecificexamplesof howthosecontributionsrisetoalevelconsistentwith major
significancein thefield. Merelyrepeatingthelanguageof thestatuteor regulationsdoesnotsatisfy
thepetitioners burdenof proof. FedinBros.Co.,Ltd. v.Sava,724F. Supp.I 103,l 108(E.D.N.Y.
1989),affd, 905F. 2d41 (2d.Cir. 1990);AvyrAssociates.Inc. v. Meissner,1997WL 188942at *5
(S.D.N.Y.).The lack of supportingevidencegives the AAO no basisto gaugethesignificanceof
thepetitioner'spresentcontributions.
Further, USCIS may, in its discretion,use as advisory opinion statementssubmittedas expert
testimony.SeeMatterof CaronInternational,19I&N Dec.791,795(Comm'r1988). However,
USClS is ultimately responsibicfor makingthe final determinationregardingan alien's eligibility
for the benefitsought. Id. The submissionof lettersof supportfrom the petitioner'spersonal
contactsis notpresumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmayevaluatethecontentof thoseletters
asto whetherthev supportthe alien's eligibility. Seeid. at 795;seealso Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N
Dec.500.n.2(BIA 2008). Thus,thecontentof thewriters' statementsandhow theybecameaware
of the petitioner'sreputationare importantconsiderations.Evenwhenwritten by independent
experts,letterssolicitedby analienin supportof an immigrationpetitionareof lessweightthan
preexisting,independentevidenceof originalcontributionsof majorsignificance.
Again,theplainlanguageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)requires"[e]videnceof the
alien's original scientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-relatedcontributionsof major
significancein thefield [emphasisadded]."Withoutadditional,specificevidenceshowingthatthe
petitioner'swork has beenunusuallyinfluential, widely appliedthroughouthis field. or has
otherwiserisentothelevelof contributionsof majorsignificance,theAAO cannoiconcludethathe
meetsthiscriterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedtoestablishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidencethat thealien hasperformedin a leadingor critical rolefor organizations
or establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
Onappeal,counselclaims:
As Presidentof | .], [the petitioner's]role was
leadingandcritical as it washis vision that ultimatelyled to the successof the
historic event. [The petitioner]was instrumentalin obtainingproperauthorization
Page I1
from both the North and South governmentsto hold and film the event. [The
petitioner)appliedall hisdirectorialskillsandwasengagedin all stagesof planning
an execution of the telecast. The event was covered by major news outlets
throughout Korea including Korea's three major broadcasters.the Korean
BroadcastingSystem (KBS); the Seoul BroadcastingSystem (SBS); and the
MunhwaBroadcastingCorporation(MBC). Dueto [thepetitioner's]leadershipand
directorialskills,theeventwassosuccessfulthat[WooinbangCommunicationsCo.]
wascommissionedto continuetheracesbetweenthetwo nationsandstrengthenthe
spirit of cooperationbetweenthenations.
As discussedthroughoutthisdecision,thepetitionerfiled theemployment-basedimmigrantpetition
to seekclassificationasanalien with extraordinaryability asa film directorandwriter. While the
petitionersubmitteddocumentaryevidencereflectinghis involvementin themotorcar rally event,
thereis no documentaryevidencereflectingthat he filmed theeventor his involvementrelatedto
his field of film directingandwriting. SeeLeev. LN.S.,237 F. Supp.2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002)
(upholding a finding that competitive athletics and coachingare not within the samearea of
expertise). Moreover,thepreviouslyindicatedphotographsreflectedclaimsof a pressconference
by newsagenciesratherthanevidencethatthepetitionerfilmed theevent. The AAO mustlook to
thedocumentsexecutedby the petitionerand not to subsequentstatementsof counsel Matter of
Izummi,22 l&N Dec. 169,185(Comm'r 1998).
Notwithstandingtheabove,theplainlanguageof theregulationrequires"[ejvidencethatthealien
has performedin a leadingor critical role for organizationsor establishmentsthat have a
distinguishedrepa/ation [emphasisadded]." The petitioner failed to submit any documentary
evidencedemonstratingthatWooinbangCommunicationsCo.hasadistinguishedreputation.
Moreover,evenif thepetitionerweretosubmitsupportingdocumentaryevidenceshowingthathis
rolewith WooinbangCommunicationsCo.meetstheelementsof thiscriterion,whichhehasnot,
section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct requiresthesubmissionof extensiveevidence.Consistentwith
that statutoryrequirement,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)
requiresthe petitionerto perform in a leadingor critical role for more than one organizationor
establishment.Significantly,not all of the criteriaat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)arewordedin the
plural. Specifically,theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(ix) onlyrequireserviceona
singlejudging panelor a single high salary. When a regulatorycriterion wishesto include the
singularwithin theplural, it expresslydoesso aswhenit statesat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)that
evidenceofexperiencemustbein the formof"letter(s)." Thus,theAAO caninfer thattheplural in
the remainingregulatorycriteria hasmeaning. In a different context,federalcourtshaveupheld
USCIS' ability to interpretsignificancefrom whetherthe singularor plural is usedin a regulation.
SeeMaramjayan USCTS,Civ. Act. No. 06-2158(RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March26, 2008);
Snapnames.comInc. n Chertoff,2006WL 3491005at *10 (D. Or. Nov.30,2006)(upholdingan
interpretationthatthe regulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreignequivalent
degreeat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(l)(2)requiresa singledegreeratherthana combinationof academic
credentials).In thecasehere,on appeal,counselonly claimedthepetitioner'seligibility for this
criterionbasedononeorganization.
Page12
Again, the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)requires"[e]videncethat
thealienhasperformedin a leadingor criticalrolefor organizationsor establishmentsthathavea
distinguishedreputation'' Theburdenis onthepetitionerto establishthathemeetseveryelement
of this criterion. Without documentaryevidencedemonstratingthatthepetitionerhasperformedin
a leadingor criticalrolefor organizationsor establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation,the
AAO cannotconcludethatthepetitionermeetsthiscriterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedtoestablishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
B. Summary
Thepetitionerhasfailedto satisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.
III. CONCLUSION
The documentationsubmittedin supportof a claim of extraordinaryability must clearly
demonstratethatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandisoneof the
smaHpercentagewhohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldofendeavor.
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary
categories,in accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits
determinationthatconsidersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhas
demonstrated:(1) a"levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualisoneof thatsmallpercentage
who haverisento the verytop of the[ir] field of endeavor"and(2) "that thealienhassustained
nationalor internationalacclaimandthathisor herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield
of expertise.'' 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(2)and(3); seealso Kazarian,596F.3dat i I 19-20. While the
AAO concludesthattheevidenceis not indicativeof a levelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmall
percentageat thevery top of the field or sustainednationalor internationalacclaim.theAAO need
notexplainthatconclusionin a final meritsdeterminationf Rather,theproperconclusionis thatthe
petitionerhasfailed to satisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence./d.
at 1122.
The petitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthe
petitionmaynotbeapproved.
4The AAO maintainsdenovoreviewof all questionsof factandlaw. SeeSoltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143,145(3d Cir.
2004). In anyfutureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdictiontoconducta final meritsdeterminationastheoffice
that madethe last decisionin this matter. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). Seealso section103(a)(1)of the Act; section
204(b)of theAct: DHS DelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch I, 2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1 (2003);8 C.F.R.
§ 103.l(f)(3)(iii) (2003);Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec.458, 460 (BIA 1987)(holding that legacyINS, now
USCIS,is thesoleauthoritywith thejurisdiction to decidevisapetitions).
Theburdenof proof in visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner. Section291of
the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Here,the petitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden. Accordingly,the
appealwill bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.