dismissed EB-1A Case: Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 27,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a journalist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, 
of which she must meet at least three. The Director dismissed the Petitioner's subsequently filed 
motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents a new document and a brief, contending that she satisfies at least 
three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified immigrants with extraordinary 
ability 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of A- V-
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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter o[Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner worked for several newspapers in Russia, wrote a book, and now operates a blog in 
the United States. Because she has not indicated or established that she has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met only one of 
the initial evidentiary criteria, awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets six additional criteria, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in thefield of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion. A review of the record does not 
demonstrate her receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field. The Petitioner submitted evidence showing that she received awards from government­
related organizations, such as the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Russian Ministry for 
Civil Defense, Emergency Management, and Natural Responses, as well as a certificate of 
appreciation from a United Nations police seminar. The distribution of prizes and awards by 
2 
.
Maller ofA- V-
government entities does not necessarily show that they are nationally or internationally recognized 
in the field as awards for excellence. As evidence, the Petitioner offered recommendation letters 
from individuals, such as journalist who explained why the Petitioner 
received the awards and indicated that they "are awarded only once every two years, while the 
Honorary Awards are unique in themselves because they were awarded to mark outstanding results 
of her work and criminal investigations. " 1 The issue here, however , is not the frequency or 
uniqueness of the awards but whether they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence 
in the field. 
In addition, the record contains other letters, such as from journalists and 
, who each state that "[ o ]ne cannot underestimate the importance of this award as it 
clearly demonstrates remarkable professionalism and outstanding abilities of [the Petitioner] in the 
field of journalism , as witnessed and confirmed by both her peers and top-level experts and 
officials." We note that the identical language calls into question whether the letters were prepared 
by the authors , and therefore diminishes their probative value in establishing that the Petitioner's 
awards qualify for this criterion. Regardless, the letters explain why she received the awards without 
showing that they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted a certificate indicating that she received the "Golden Pen" at the 
"Practice Day" contest, organized by the journalism faculty at University and 
the further stated that "[t]he judges in the 
contest were the representatives of the Faculty of Journalism Union as well as the most respected 
journalist[s]." The letter, however, does not demonstrate that 
that field beyond and 
recognizes the award for excellence . For these reasons , we withdraw the Director's findings , and the 
Petitioner did not establish 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 of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orjields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner claims that she meets this criterion based on membership with and 
the 
. On appeal, she references the letters discussed above , 
such as from who stated that "[b ]oth organizations require outstanding achievement of 
their members prior to accepting applicants" and "only the journalists with outstanding achievements 
can become members of these organizations. " In addition, journalist asserted 
that the Petitioner "was a member of two important organizations in the field of journalism that 
require outstanding achievement of their members" and "owing to her talent and outstanding 
reporting ... that she was admitted to his organization." The letters, however, do not demonstrate 
that the associations require outstanding achievements as a condition for membership, nor do they 
indicate that membership is judged by recognized national or international experts. Repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner 's burden of proof Fedin Bros. 
1 
Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
.
Matter of A- V-
Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. II 03, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), afj'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). 
Further, the record contains copies of website screenshots reflecting the associations' membership 
requirements. Specifically, states that "one must be a professional creative specialist whose 
main occupation is working in the media, including a free lancer." In addition, one "must have 
reached the age of eighteen, recognize the present Charter, have paid the entrance fee, and must have 
been personally involved in the work of ." As it relates to , membership is reserved to 
journalists "who have professionally worked in the media for at least 3 years as employees of the 
editorial staff, news agencies, TV and radio stations, etc., or who have worked as freelance 
journalists ... or who have engaged in journalistic activities having been tasked by the editorial 
staff." Here, neither association's membership requirements are indicative of outstanding 
achievements consistent with this regulatory criterion? In addition, the Petitioner did not establish 
that the relevant achievements are judged by recognized national or international experts. 
Accordingly , the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she satisfies 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 class?fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of published material in professional or major trade publications or in other major media 
publications about a petitioner should establish that the circulation is high compared to other 
circulation statistics and show who the intended audience of the publication is, as well as the title, 
date, and author of the material. 3 Although the Petitioner provided documentation reflecting 
material about her , she did not demonstrate that her evidence meets every element of this criterion. 
Specifically, the Petitioner provided two screenshots of interviews with her that were posted on 
Russian website, However, the evidence did not 
contain the required authors of the material. Moreover, while the Petitioner presented screenshots 
from Wikipedia regarding an overview of , she did not submit evidence showing that 
is a major medium. 
Further , the Petitioner submitted articles reflecting interviews with her that were published in the 
. Besides not including the authors , the Petitioner did not establish 
that the newspapers are major media. While the Petitioner claims that the . "is the 
leading Russian language newspaper in the area" and . "reaches over 200 ,000 
2 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update AD/ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov /sites/default/files/ocomm/ilink/0-0-0-6423.html (stating that relevant factors that may lead to a 
conclusion that membership was not based on outstanding achievements include years of experience in a particular field, 
payment of a subscription fee, or employment in certain occupations). 
3 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra , at 7. 
4 
.
Matter of A-V-
Russian speaking people in " she did not support her assertions with supporting 
documentation, nor did she show that such circulation would be consistent with "major media" 
status. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided screenshots from reflecting an interview with 
her. The Petitioner , however , did not include the author and date of the screenshot. Further , while 
the screenshot indicates that the project "is created to promote the development of cultural , 
academic , and business cooperation," the Petitioner did not show that the website is considered a 
professional or major trade publication or other major medium. 
The Petitioner also submitted screenshots of an interview of her from . Again, the 
Petitioner did not include the required date and author of the material. Moreover, the Petitioner 
claims that _ is an online newspaper with an audience of "approximately 12,500 readers 
per day." However , the record 
reflects that the Petitioner previously submitted a screenshot from 
showing that "[t]he audience of the web site is approximately 2,500 readers per day." 
Notwithstanding this inconsistency , the Petitioner did not demonstrate that either readership statistic 
is indicative of a major medium. 
Finally, the Petitioner claims that "[t]he record contains a transcript of the interview of the Petitioner 
taken by TV show produced by " Although the record contains an 
English translation, the Petitioner did not submit a transcript of the interview, and the translation 
does not include the author of the material. Moreover, while the Petitioner provided documentation 
regarding the newspaper , as well as supplementing evidence on appeal regarding 
she did not show that the interview was printed in or posted on 
In addition , the Petitioner did not offer evidence reflecting that the program 
qualifies as a major medium. The Petitioner also references another article that was posted on 
however the article is self-authored and was posted after she filed her petition. The 
Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of the filing. 8 C.F.R.§ 1 03.2(b )(1 ). For these reasons, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic. or business-related 
contributions of major signjficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish not only that 
she has made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
instance, a petitioner may show that her contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in her overall field. The Petitioner argues that her recommendation letters meet this 
criterion. Specifically , the Petitioner references samples of letters where the authors discussed her 
coverage of ranging topics , such as criminal cases and emergency situations. For example , 
discussed the Petitioner's work on where she covered the 
redistribution of the diamond market , and indicated that she "reported the 
5 
.
Maller of A- V-
kidnapping of a child from a city in Central Russia." Even though the authors highlighted some of 
the Petitioner's stories, they do not establish how her work is of major significance to the field of 
journalism. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had 
not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Similarly , while the Petitioner submitted copies of her articles indicating the originality of her work, 
she did not demonstrate how her reporting and stories have impacted or influenced the field of 
journalism. Moreover , the Petitioner speculates on how her reporting "might " have helped police 
investigations. For example, the Petitioner claims that if she had not started her investigation , "he 
might have never been caught." Besides the unsupported nature of her claims, this criterion requires 
the Petitioner to show that her original contributions have already been of major significance to the 
journalism field. 
In addition , the Petition er references her compiling and publishing in of 
potentiall y dangerous residential and commercial buildings across Russia. She also submitted an 
article posted on indicating that, since the publication of the list, "a lot of owners started to 
put their propet1y into shape ." The Petitioner , however, did not demonstrate the impact of her 
reporting and publication on the journalism field. 
The reference letters also praise the Petitioner for her skills and talents. For example, 
claimed that the Petitioner possesses "outstanding skills and extraordinary talent." Although 
the letters praise the Petitioner for her skills and work , they do not explain how she has made 
original contributions of major significance in the field. Having a diverse skill set is not a 
contribution of major significance in and of itself. Rather , the record must be supported by evidence 
that the Petitioner has used those unique skills to impact the field at a significant level. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of how her contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian , 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115, 1122. 
Moreover , USCIS need not accept primaril y conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The U.S Arty 
Gen., 745 F. Supp . 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). For these reasons , the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publication s or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner argues that her articles in newspapers, such as , meet this 
criterion. A scholarly at1icle should be written for "learned" persons in the field. "Learned " is 
defined as having or demonstrating profound knowledge or scholarship . Learned persons include all 
.
Matter of A- V-
persons having profound knowledge of a tield. 4 Here, the Petitioner has authored journalistic 
articles rather than scholarly articles in the field of journalism. In addition, the Petitioner has not 
shown that her articles are written for "learned" persons, rather her journalistic articles are written 
for the general population. 
Further , the Petitioner claims that her book , 
satisfies this criterion. She references recommendation letters who indicate the 
"journalistic" nature of the book. For example, stated that "[t]his book is a beautiful 
journalistic effort
" and " ( u ]ndoubtedly, this book is journalism." In the case here, the Petitioner has 
not established that her journalistic book qualifies as and 
has the characteristics of a scholarly article. 
Moreover, while the Petitioner indicates that the book is sold at bookstores and other websites , she 
has not documented that it qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other major 
medium. 
The Petitioner also argues that "these publications may not be the ' scholarly articles' as they would 
be in the case of a scientist for example , but nevertheless the petitioner's articles and book were 
published in the major media and , as such , should satisfy this criterion. " The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not readily 
apply to her occupation. 5 However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that this criterion does not 
readily apply to journalists. The fact that the Petitioner did not author scholarly articles in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media is not evidence that a journalist could 
not do so. Moreov er, she did not show how her articles and book are "truly comparable " to the 
scholarly articles criterion.r' Accordingly , the Petitioner did not establish that she meets this 
criterion , including through the submission of comparable evidence. 
Evidence qf the di.splay of the alien ·s work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner displayed her book through a presentation at the 
Public Library. Accordingly, the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. 
Branch of the New York 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner contends that her work as a journalist for . 
collaborating with the Russian Ministry of 
and the Russian Ministry of , shows that she performed in a leading or 
critical role for each of these newspapers. If a leading role, then evidence must establish that a 
petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties , can help to establish if a role 
4 
See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, supra, at 9. 
5 /d.atl 2. 
6 !d. 
..
Matter of A-V-
is or was, in fact, leading. 7 If a critical role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner has 
contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or 
establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the 
role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 8 
On appeal , the Petitioner refers to recommendation letter that discussed her 
investigating and reporting on stories, such as the deaths of a Russian journalist and a prominent 
American businessman. Here, the Petitioner did not establish that the letter shows that she 
performed in a leading role for any of the newspapers. The letter does not claim that she held a 
leadership position. In addition, the Petitioner did not submit, for example, organizational charts 
ret1ecting the hierarchy at any of the publications. 
As it relates to a critical role, while indicated that the Petitioner worked with the 
ministries , including receiving awards from them, the letter does not demonstrate that she 
contributed to the succe ss or ·standing of the newspapers. The Petitioner did not establish , for 
instance , that her reporting resulted in higher sales or that the newspapers garnered awards or 
furthered their reputations based on the Petitioner 's work. 
Finally, this criterion also requires that the organizations or establishments must be recognized as 
having a distinguished reputation, which is marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. 9 The 
Petitioner does not reference on appeal , nor does the record contain, evidence relating to the 
reputations of , In regards to 
the record contains Wikipedia screenshots showing that it is a Russian 
government-based newspaper. However , the record does not demonstrate that the publication enjoys 
a distinguished reputation. For these reasons , the Petitioner did not show that she meets this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result , we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 1119-20 . Nevertheless , we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate , concluding that it does not supp011 a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the level of experti se required for the classification sought. For the 
foregoing reasons , the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. 
7 
See USC IS Polic y Memorandum PM-602-0005.1 , supra, at I 0. 
8 /d. 
9 /datl2-13. 
Matter of A- V-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter (~/A-V-, ID# 1088142 (AAO Mar. 27, 2018) 
9