dismissed EB-1A Case: Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11877771 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 26, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a journalist, seeks classification as an alien 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
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. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( 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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has served as a sub-editor atl I which owns several 
publications in Nepal, includingDI I a U.S.-based Nepali-language news website, 
has offered the Petitioner a position as a consulting editor. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner initially claimed to have met all ten criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; 
• (ix), High remuneration for services; and 
• (x), Commercial success in the performing arts. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met only the fourth criterion, relating to participation as a 
judge of the work of others. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets eight other evidentiary 
criteria. The Petitioner does not contest the Director's conclusions regarding the seventh criterion, 
pertaining to artistic display, and therefore we consider that issue to be abandoned. 1 
1 See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 T&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att:v Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not show that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. We agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of others. Below, we will discuss the other eight 
criteria that the Petitioner claims on appeal. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
The Petitioner discusses two claimed awards on appeal. The record directly documents only one of them. 
A certificate froml I shows that the Petitioner won an I I Award u 
. . . for Outstanding Performance in a field of Journalism 2014-15." An official from the awarding 
organization stated that a three-member committee chose the Petitioner "for her outstanding contribution 
through journalism in I I." This statement describes how the Petitioner received the award, 
but it does not show that the award is nationally or internationally recognized. 
The record also indicates that the Nepal Press Union (NPU) gave the Petitioner a.__ _______ ___. 
in 2015. The Petitioner does not include a copy of the letter itself Instead, the Petitioner submits a March 
2016 letter from the NPU' s coordinator, 2 stating: 
.__ ________ ~ is the recognition ... established to honor the excellence and 
outstanding contribution of a journalist in the field of journalism. It was awarded to [the 
Petitioner] ... in the year of 2015. She was selected by an independent sub committee 
led by renowned person[ s] from [the] field of journalism. The reason behind her selection 
is her immense contribution [to the] I ~ journalism as a whole. 
Other NPU officials provided subsequent letters, dated 2019. The general secretary of the NPU states: 
"In recognition of her outstanding journalism, Nepal Press Union had awarded [the Petitioner] with the 
I I in 2015, which is an award handed over to one journalist annually." The president of the 
NPU states that the organization honored the Petitioner as anl t' in 2015, based on 
"her immense contribution to the field of Nepalese journalism, her vision, and her innovative work on 
establishing! I online portal." The record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the 
letter of appreciation is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field 
of journalism. 
Considering that the Petitioner claims to have received journalism awards from journalists, it bears noting 
that the Petitioner does not show that any of her claimed awards received any media coverage at the time 
she received them. This is directly relevant to the question of how widely recognized the awards are. 
The Petitioner has not established her receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in her field of endeavor. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
2 The coordinator has the same surname as the Petitioner. The record does not say whether the two are related. 
3 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner is a member of Sancharika Samuha, described as "a Forum of women communicators," 
and the Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ). The record does not establish that either organization 
requires outstanding achievements of its members. The president of the FNJ states that the organization 
"is a professional representative body" with "more than 10,000" members, and the record indicates that 
the FNJ is a trade union rather than an exclusive organization with restrictive membership requirements. 
The Petitioner has not shown that she is a member of any organization or establishment that requires 
outstanding achievements of its members. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner initially submitted what she called "articles primarily about [her] work." The Petitioner 
was the author or editor of these articles, but not their subject. Such articles are not about the Petitioner, 
relating to her work. Rather, they are products of the Petitioner's work as a journalist. 
The Petitioner's response to a request for evidence includes several articles about her. Some were 
published after the petition's filing date. These materials cannot establish that the Petitioner met the 
eligibility requirements at the time of filing, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), and therefore we need 
not discuss further details of these articles. 
The remaining articles ( one from I I and one from I , b do not include the authors' 
names as the regulation requires. The Director stated that they also lacked certified translations, but the 
translator's certification is in the record. 
Of greater concern, the Petitioner does not establish thatl I and I I are professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. A letter from an official of the Press Council Nepal 
states thatl I circulates over 30,000 copies per month, but firovides no context (and cites no 
source) for this figure. The same official states thatl _ is a "credible online news outlet," 
which does not suffice to meet the regulatory standards. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
The Petitioner submits copies of articles that she wrote or edited, but the submitted articles are not 
scholarly. A scholarly article should be written for learned persons in a given field. ("Learned" is 
4 
defined as "having or demonstrating profound knowledge or scholarship.")3 The Petitioner's articles 
are for a general readership, regarding such topics as a preview of a science fiction film; dressing for cold 
weather; and profiles of women employed in various fields. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Petitioner establishes the distinguished reputation of~-------~ but has not shown that 
her role with that publisher is leading or critical. If a leading role, the evidence must establish that the 
alien is ( or was) a leader. If a critical role, the evidence must establish that the alien has contributed 
in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's 
activities. 4 
An assistant general manager at describes the Petitioner's work there: ~---------' 
As a sub-editor, she was responsible for identifying interesting stories, interview 
subjects, collecting data/information and editin . She wrote educational informative 
and entertainin articles 
Through the focus on 
substantive matters, [the Petitioner] was able to able to spread awareness among Nepali 
audience [sic] on these issues. Her lea
1
ershifi, vision and her focus on creating 
interesting and substantive content helped become the largest selling I I 
magazine in Nepal. ... 
She also came up with creative ideas on supplement issues ofc=J that were immensely 
liked by business outlets and was able to generate significant revenue forl I 
I I 
The editor of~states: 
[The Petitioner] has played an instrumental role in defining, developing and establishing 
I I stronghold a~ong r~aders in and outside Nepal .... [The Petitioner] has been a 
strong pillar in makin he household name it is today . . . . The supplement o±c=J 
is an example of successful planning and implementation which was both content wise 
and commer~ially I successful . . . . She pushed the management towards effective 
digitization o in a country where internet was not yet so widespread. 
These officials credit the Petitioner with contributing to~'s popularity, but do not provide enough 
information to show that the Petitioner's work, in particular, had a significant effect on the magazine's 
success. The Petitioner has not shown how many reporters and sub-editorsc=J employs at any one time, 
or provided an objective basis for comparing the Petitioner's role to that of others at the publication. Also, 
3 USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https ://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 10. 
5 
the Petitioner has provided few details about the nature of her work as a sub-editor. Without that 
information, we cannot conclude that she has shown her role to be leading or critical. 
The Petitioner has not established that she satisfies the requirements of 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Petitioner submits two similarly-worded letters signed by other journalists. One letter calls the 
Petitioner "one of the highest paid female journalists in Nepal"; the other uses nearly the same phrase, 
substituting "women" for "female." The letters include no figures or other elaboration. The letters have 
oTer similarities: wejj· foI example, both state that the Petitioner "has proven to be an enormous asset 
to.__ ____ ~~--_, magazine of Nepal." The use of nearly identical language strongly suggests 
a common author, whom we can infer to be the Petitioner herself 5 
Nepal's Minimum Wage Fixation Committee "has fixed minimum remuneration for Nepalijournalist[s] 
at Nrs. 19,200 per month." A letter from that committee states: "Records show that the monthly 
remuneration received by [the Petitioner] as a sub-editor ofc=J and as media adviser/consultant for 
various organizations was over NRS 170,000 in the fiscal year 2015-2016, which is over 8 times the 
minimum salary of a journalist ... and over 4 times ... the average income [ o ]f senior journalists." 
The figure provided for the Petitioner, however, is not the salary of a journalist. Rather, it is the combined 
total of salaries from several employers and clients. Letters in the record indicate that various schools 
and child care facilities each paid the Beneficiary between 40,000 and 55,000 Nepalese rupees per month. 
Most of those letters do not specify the Petitioner's duties as a "media consultant"; one employer indicated 
that the Petitioner's duties included marketing and promotion. 
The record does not show what salary lpays to the Petitioner as a journalist and sub­
editor, but it is evident that the bulk of the Petitioner's monthly income has come from schools rather than 
publishers. 
Because the Petitioner has not shown what she earns for her work as a journalist, she has not shown that 
she has commanded a high salary in relation to others in the field of journalism. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the peiforming arts, as shown by box office receipts 
or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) 
The Petitioner asserts that, because she has established a high salary under the previous criterion, she has 
also shown that she satisfies this criterion. This assertion is deficient for several reasons. First, as 
discussed above, she has not established her level of compensation as a journalist; most of her income 
derives from promotional work for employers or clients who are not publishers. 
5 Cf Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 489 F.3d 517,519 (2d Cir. 2007) (an immigration judge may reasonably infer 
that when an asylum applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is the common source). 
G 
Second, the language of this criterion refers specifically to commercial success in the performing arts. 
The Petitioner does not claim or establish that the performing arts include journalism. 
Finally, commercial success is not synonymous with high salary. If it were, then there would be no 
reason for two separate regulatory criteria. The commercial success of a given film, recording, or 
performance is separate from the payment received by any one individual participant. 
The Petitioner is not employed in the performing arts and has not submitted box office receipts or sales 
figures to establish commercial success in the performing arts. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major significance in the_field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner does not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of 
three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Detailed discussion of this remaining criterion cannot 
change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve this issue. 6 
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 lesser 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 support a conclusion 
that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. Here, the Petitioner 
has established that she works for a large and successful publication and has earned some degree of 
recognition for that work. But she has not shown that this recognition rises to the required level of 
sustained national or international acclaim, or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in 
the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is 
one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
7