dismissed EB-1A Case: Journalism

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
-denti in data deleted to AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve., N.W., MS 2090
prevent clearly unwarranted Washington,DC 20529-2090
invasionofpersonalprivacy U.S.Citizenship
SIC COPY andImmigration
P Services
DATE: Jÿ[ Q 9 2Qj‡ Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto the office that originally decidedyour case. Pleasebe advisedthat
anyfurtherinquiry thatyoumight haveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believetheAAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
information that you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within
30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
The petitionerseeksclassificationasan "alien of extraordinaryability" as a journalist,pursuantto
section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A).Thedirector
determinedthepetitionerhadnotestablishedthesustainednationalor internationalacclaimnecessaryto
qualifyfor classificationasanalienof extraordinaryability.
Congressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien's achievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a
major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,theregulationoutlines
tencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). Thepetitionermust
submitqualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establish
thebasiceligibilityrequirements.
Thepetitioner'sprioritydateestablishedby thepetitionfiling dateisJune28,2010. OnMarch7,2011,
the directorservedthe petitionerwith a requestfor evidence(RFE). After receivingthe petitioner's
responseto theRFE,thedirectorissuedherdecisiononJune1,2011. Onappeal,thepetitionersubmits
a brief with new documentaryevidence. For the reasonsdiscussedbelow, the AAO upholdsthe
director's ultimate determinationthat the petitioner has not establishedhis eligibility for the
classificationsought.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priority workers.-- Visasshall first be madeavailable. . . to qualified immigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowing subparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.-- An alienis describedin thissubparagraphif --
(i) thealienhasextraordinaryability in thesciences,arts,education,business,or
athleticswhich has beendemonstratedby sustainednationalor international
acclaim and whose achievementshave been recognizedin the field through
extensivedocumentation,
(ii) the alien seeksto enterthe United Statesto continuework in the areaof
extraordinaryability,and
Page3
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill substantiallybenefit prospectively
theUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta veryhigh standardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723 101stCong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability" refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.Id.;
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien'ssustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(thatis, amajor,internationalrecognizedaward)or
throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten categoriesof evidence
listedat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,theU.S.Court9f Appealsfor theNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof apetition
filed underthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010). Althoughthecourt
upheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's evaluationof
evidencesubmittedto meeta givenevidentiarycriterion.1 With respectto the criteriaat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhile USCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedtomeetthosetwo criteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-22.
Thecourtstatedthatthe AAO's evaluationrestedon an improperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof the initial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureisto countthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAO did)," andif thepetitioner
failedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at 1122(citing to
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazarian setsforth a two-partapproachwherethe evidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof a final meritsdetermination.In this matter,theAAO will review the evidenceunder
theplainlanguagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed.As thepetitionerdid notsubmitqualifying
evidenceunderatleastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
Specifically,the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterally imposednovel substantiveor evidentiary
requirementsbeyondthose set forth in the regulationsat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iv)and 8C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
II. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentationof the alien's receipt of lessernationally or internationally recognizedprizes or
awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
Thiscriterioncontainsseveralevidentiaryelementsthepetitionermustsatisfy. Accordingto theplain
languageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),theevidencemustestablishthatthealienbethe
recipientof the prizesor the awards(in the plural).The clearregulatorylanguagerequiresthatthe
prizesor theawardsarenationallyor internationallyrecognized.Theplain languageof theregulation
alsorequiresevidencethateachprizeor awardis onefor excellencein thefield of endeavorratherthan
simplyfor participatingin or contributingto theevent.Thepetitionermustsatisfyall of theseelements
tomeettheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
The directordeterminedthat the petitionerfailed to meetthe plain languagerequirementsof this
criterion. On appeal.counselassertsthatthepetitioner'sreceiptof theYoungJournalist'sAwardfor
2009qualifiedasa lessernationallyrecognizedawardbasedsolelyon the fact thatthecertificateof
appreciationdocumentingtheawardwassignedby thePrimeMinisterof NepalandthePresidentof the
Federationof NepaliJournalists.Counselfailedto provideevidenceor legalanalysisin supportof the
positionthat becausea documentis signedby the Nepaliprime minister,that the awardbecomes
nationallyrecognizedfor excellencein thepetitioner'sfieldof endeavor.Theunsupportedassertionsof
counseldo not constituteevidence.Matter of Obaigbena,19 I&N Dec.533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988);
MatterofLaureano,19I&N Dec.1,3 n.2(BIA 1983);MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,
506(BIA 1980). Theunsupportedassertionsof counselin a brief arenot evidenceandthusarenot
entitledto anyevidentiaryweight. SeeINSv. Phinpathya,464 U.S.183,188-89n.6(1984). In
comparison,the Presidentof the UnitedStatessignslettersof appreciationfor retiringcivil service
workers?However,thesimplefactthatanindividualin apositionof highauthoritysignsadocument,
doesnottransformthedocument,or thecertificate,into anationallyor internationallyrecognizeditem.
National and internationalrecognitionresults,not from the individual who signedthe prize or the
award,but throughtheawarenessof theaccoladein theeyesof thefield nationallyor internationally.
This canoccurthroughseveralmeans;for example,throughmediacoverage.
Additionally, the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requiresevidenceof
"awards" in the plural, which is consistentwith the statutory requirementfor extensiveevidence.
2Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimto meetor submitevidencerelatingto theregulatorycategoriesof cvidencenot
discussedin thisdecision.
Seehttps; glarng.army.pentagon.mil/Programs/RPLOA/Paees/default.aspx,[accessedon June26, 2012,acopy
of whichis incorporatedintotherecordof proceeding.]Similarly,thepresidentialphysicalfitnessawardisnota
nationallyor internationallyrecognizedawardforexcellencein athletics.Rather,it representsstudentsreaching
the 85* percentilein certainphysicalactivitics. Seehttps://www.presidentschallenge.org/celebrate/physical-
fitness.shtml.
Page5
Section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct. Significantly,not all of thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)are
wordedin theplural. Specifically,theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(ix) onlyrequire
serviceonasinglejudgingpanelor asinglehighsalary.Whena regulatorycriterionwishesto include
thesingularwithin theplural,it expresslydoessoaswhenit statesat8 C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)that
evidenceof experiencemustbein theformof "letter(s)."Thus,theAAO caninferthatthepluralin the
remainingregulatorycriteriahasmeaning.In a differentcontext,federalcourtshaveupheldUSCIS'
ability to interpretsignificancefrom whetherthe singularor plural is usedin a regulation. See
Maramjayav. USCIS,Civ. Act. No. 06-2158(RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008);
Snapnames.cominc. v. Chertoff,2006WL 3491005at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006)(upholdingan
interpretationthattheregulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreignequivalentdegree
at8C.F.R.§204.5(1)(2)requiresasingledegreeratherthanacombinationof academiccredentials).
Asthepetitioneronlyconteststhedirector'sdeterminationrelatedto oneaward,hecannotdemonstrate
thathemeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield fòr which classificationis
sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsoftheirmembers,asjudgedbyrecognizednational
or internationalexpertsin their disciplinesorfields.
Thedirectordiscussedtheevidencesubmittedfor thiscriterionandfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto
establishhis eligibility. On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot contestthe director'sfindings for this
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considersthis issue to be
abandoned.Sepulvedav. U.S.Att'y Gen.,401F.3d1226,1228n.2 (11thCir. 2005);Hristovv.Roark,
No. 09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30, 2011)(thecourtfoundthe
plaintiff's claimsto beabandonedashefailedto raisethemon appealto theAAO). Accordingly,the
petitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidenceunderthiscriterion.
Publishedmaterialaboutthe alien in professionalor major tradepublicationsor othermajor
media,relatingto thealien'swork in thefield for whichclassificationis sought. Suchevidence
shall includethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,andanynecessarytranslation.
Thedirectordiscussedtheevidencesubmittedfor this criterionandfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto
establishhis eligibility. On appeal,the petitioner does not contestthe director's findings for this
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be
abandoned.Sepalveda401 F.3d at 1228n.2; Hristov, 2011WL 4711885,at *9. Accordingly,the
petitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidenceunderthiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor on apanel,as a judgeof the workof
othersin thesameor analliedfield ofspecificationfor whichclassificationissought.
This criterionrequiresnot only thatthepetitionerwasselectedto serveasa judge,but alsothatthe
petitioneris ableto produceevidencethatheactuallyparticipatedasajudge. Thephrase"a judge"
impliesa formaldesignationin a judging capacity,eitheron a panelor individuallyas specifiedat
Page6
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally,thesedutiesmusthavebeendirectlyjudging the work of
othersin thesameor analliedfield in whichthepetitionerseeksanimmigrantclassificationwithin the
presentpetition. Thepetitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meettheplain
languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Thepetitionerprovideda May 3, 2009,letterfrom
the Nepal PressUnion. The directordeterminedthat the petitionermet the requirementsof this
criterion. TheAAO departsfromthedirector'seligibility determinationrelatedto thiscriterionfor the
reasonsoutlinedbelow.
Theletterfrom Mr is datedMay 3, 2009. Within theletter,Mr. expressedgratitude
for thepetitioner's"kind acceptanceto stayon theJudgePanelwherebyyouindebtedusawardingfair
Judgement[sic] of theStringers'contestheldon 13thand14thdaysof July2009. . . Thankingyouand
anticipatingyourkind cooperationin thedaysto come." Basedon the futuretenseof Mr.
languageandthefact thathis letterpredatedtheeventatwhichthepetitionerpurportedlyservedasa
judge,thisevidencefails to demonstratethatthepetitioneractuallyservedasajudge. Instead,thisis
evidencedemonstratingthatthepetitionerwasselectedtoserveasajudge.
Consequently,thepetitionerhasnot submittedevidencethatmeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof
thiscriterionandtheAAO withdrawsthedirector'sdeterminationasit relatestothiscriterion.
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributionsofmajorsignificancein thefield.
Theplainlanguageof thisregulatorycriterioncontainsmultipleevidentiaryelementsthatthepetitioner
mustsatisfy. Thefirst is evidenceof thepetitioner'scontributions(in theplural)to his field. These
contributionsmusthavealreadybeenrealizedratherthanbeingpotential,futurecontributions.The
petitionermustalsodemonstratethathiscontributionsareoriginal. Theevidencemustestablishthatthe
contributionsare scientific, scholarly,artistic, athletic, or business-relatedin nature. The final
requirementis thatthecontributionsriseto thelevel of majorsignificancein thefield asawhole,rather
thanto a projector to anorganization.Thephrase"majorsignificance"is notsuperfluousand,thus,it
hassomemeaning.Silvermanv.EastrichMultipleInvestorFund,L.P.,51 F. 3d28,31(3'dCir. 1995)
quotedin APWUv. Potter,343 F.3d619,626 (2ndCir.Sep15, 2003). Contributionsof major
significanceconnotesthat the petitioner's work has significantly impactedthe field. The petitioner
mustsubmit evidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meetthe plain languagerequirementsof this
criterion.
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto meettherequirementsof thiscriterion. Onappeal,
counselconcurswith thedirector'sdeterminationthattheevidencethepetitionerpreviouslysubmitted
wasinsufficientto meettheregulatoryrequirements.Counsel'sappellatebrief furtherstates:"[W]e
would like to note that the petitioneris presentlyrunningNepal24 Hour Newswith 7,095daily
viewers."A petitionermustestablisheligibility atthetimeof filing; apetitioncannotbeapprovedata
futuredateafterthe petitionerbecomeseligibleundera new setof facts. SeeMatter ofKatigbak,
Page7
14I&N Dec.45,49(Reg'lComm'r1971).Therefore,apetitionermaynotmakematerialchangesto a
petitionthat hasalreadybeenfiled in an effort to makean apparentlydeficientpetitionconformto
USCISrequirements.SeeMatterof Izummi,22 I&N Dec.169,175(Assoc.Comm'r 1998). At the
timeof filing, thepetitionerhadnotestablishedanycontributionto hisfield thatcouldbeconstruedas
one of major significance. Petitionsare not approvable"unlessthe beneficiarywas qualifiedfor
preferencestatusat thetimethepetitionwasfiled, to preventthebeneficiaryfrom obtaininga priority
datetowhichheorshewasnotentitled."SeeMatterofPazandeh,19I&N Dec.884,886(BIA 1989)
(citingMatterofAtembe,19I&N Dec.427,429(BIA 1986);MatterofDrigo,18I&N Dec.223,224-
225(BIA 1982);MatterofBardouille,18I&N Dec.114,116(BIA 1981)).
Thepetitioner,throughcounsel,admittedlydidnotprovideevidencedemonstratingthathecouldsatisfy
theplain languagerequirementsof thiscriterion. On appeal,thepetitionerdoesnotevencontestthe
director'sadversedeterminationunderthis criterion. The AAO, therefore,considersthis issueto be
abandoned.Sepulveda401 F.3d at 1228n.2; Hristov, 2011WL 4711885,at *9. Accordingly,the
petitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidenceunderthiscriterion.Additionally,thenewlysubmitted
evidenceon appealunderthiscriterionwill not beconsideredasit relatesto eventsthatoccurredafter
thepetitionfiling date.
Evidencethatthealienhascommandeda highsalaryor othersignificantlyhighremunerationfor
services,in relationto othersin thefield.
Thedirectordiscussedtheevidencesubmittedfor thiscriterionandfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto
establishhis eligibility. On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot contestthe director'sfindingsfor this
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considersthis issue to be
abandoned.Sepulveda401 F.3d at 1228n.2; Hristov, 2011WL 4711885,at *9. Accordingly,the
petitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidenceunderthiscriterion.
B. Summary
Thepetitionerhasfailedtosatisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.
III. CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstrate
thatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandis oneof thesmallpercentage
whohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Had the petitionersubmittedthe requisiteevidenceunderat leastthreeevidentiarycategories,in
accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determinationthat
considersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a
"level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento the
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor"and(2) "that the alien hassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthat his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise." 8C.F.R.
Page8
§§204.5(h)(2)and(3);seealsoKazarían,596F.3dat 1119-20.WhiletheAAO concludesthatthe
evidenceis notindicativeof a levelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmallpercentageattheverytopof
thefield or sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO neednot explainthatconclusionin a
finalmeritsdetermination.4Rather,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailedto satisfythe
antecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id. at1122.
Thepetitionerhasnotestablishedeligibilitypursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthepetition
maynotbeapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of the
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361;Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988)(citing Matter of
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)). Here, the petitionerhas not sustainedthat burden.
Accordingly,theappealwill bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.
4The AAO maintainsdenovo reviewof all questionsof factandlaw. SeeSoltanev.DO3,381F.3d143,145(3dCir.
2004).Inanyfutureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdictiontoconductafinalmeritsdeterminationasthe
officethatmadethelastdecisionin thismatter.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealsosection103(a)(1)of theAct;
section204(b)of theAct;DHSDelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch1,2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1(2003);8
C.F.R.§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003);MatterofAurelio,19I&N Dec.458,460(BIA 1987)(holdingthatlegacyINS,
now USCIS,is thesoleauthoritywith thejurisdiction to decidevisapetitions).