dismissed EB-1A Case: Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-R-R-L-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 2, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, 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. § l 153(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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 
concluding that the Petitioner had shown that she met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria 
but that she had not established eligibility in the final merits analysis. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability in the final 
merits analysis. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to 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 R-R-R-L-
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). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets at 
least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such 
as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
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). 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 ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a journalist. As she has not 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). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met the criteria for awards, published 
material, judging the work of others, scholarly articles, and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (iv), (vi), and (viii), respectively. On appeal, we find that the evidence in the 
record sufficiently demonstrates that the Petitioner meets at least three criteria, including published 
material, judging, and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (iv), and (viii). 
Specifically, the record reflects that the Petitioner has had articles published about her relating to her 
work in the field of journalism in professional or major trade or major media publications, she has 
participated as a judge of the work of others as a juror in selecting the recipients of numerous 
journalism awards, and she has performed a leading or critical role for an organization with a 
distinguished reputation for her role on the I I television program, "A Day with [the 
Petitioner]." As she has satisfied three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we will 
evaluate the totality of her documentary evidence in the context of the final merits determination 
below. 1 
1 We will address the evidence in the record pertaining to awards and scholarly articles in the final merits analysis. 
2 
Matter of R-R-R-L-
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has established that she meets the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether 
she has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and 
that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final 
merits determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence 
to determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability in the field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not established her eligibility. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner is a journalist who has had a successful career as a radio 
and television host. She received her bachelor's degree in social communications from the University 
ofl I in Venezuela, and was employed there from 1979 to 2009 while furthering her career in 
journalism. 
The record contains evidence of the awards the Petitioner has received, including the Municipal 
Journalism Award in 1989,2 the Order I I in 1997, the 
Orderl I in 1999, the Order in 2001, the Honorable Mention of the 
Municipal Journalism Award! I in 2003, and the Orderl lin 
2005. The record reflects tliat the maJonty of these awards come from the city of I I 
However, it lacks evidence demonstrating these awards signify recognition outside that local region, 
and thus are not indicative of national or international acclaim as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Additionally, the Petitioner was awarded the Orderl I in 1997, which she claims 
is a nationally recognized award that was given by the president of Venezuela. The record contains 
only a certificate for this award, and lacks documentation supporting the Petitioner's assertions of its 
national importance. Furthermore, she has not submitted evidence, such as media coverage, 
establishing that she received national or international acclaim for this or any of the other awards she 
has claimed. 
The Petitioner has submitted a number of articles published about her and her work, spanning from 
2001 until 2014. Most articles appeared in regional publications, such as Estampas or Panorama, and 
the Petitioner does not submit evidence to demonstrate that these publications convey national or 
international acclaim. A 2011 article appeared in the newspaper, Version Final, but the record contains 
inconsistent documentation of the publication's circulation and therefore does not establish the 
requisite level of acclaim or recognition. 3 In contrast, the Petitioner has submitted an article that 
appeared in 2006 in El Nacional, which the record identifies as a major Venezuelan newspaper, 
2 The Director indicated that the Petitioner received an award in 1998. This appears to be a scrivener's error as the record 
reflects that she received an award in 1989. 
3 The record contains a document claiming Version Final has over 100,000 daily readers, but does not reveal the source of 
its information. In contrast, it also contains documentation from a media certifying committee indicating that in 2011, 
Version Final had a circulation of 18.345. The record does not contain a full English translation, as required under 8 
C.F.R. § I 03.2(b)(3), nor does it contain evidence to overcome the discrepancies between these documents. 
3 
Matter of R-R-R-L-
regarding her work on her television show. 4 It quotes the Petitioner, briefly discussing the history of 
her television show and identifying plans to bring the show to an international audience after nine 
years of only being broadcast at a regional level. While the article recognizes the success of her local 
program and identifies hopes for expansion, the Petitioner has not established that it indicates national 
or international acclaim for her work. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director should have recognized the media coverage about 
her through 2014. She submitted an article from that year that was published in El Venezolano, a 
Florida newspaper, discussing her thoughts on journalism and her career in Venezuela. However, the 
record does not demonstrate this article has resulted in national or international acclaim, as the 
circulation information provided shows the newspaper is circulated to 20,000 individuals inl I 
The Petitioner has not explained how this represents acclaim at a national or international level. 
The record contains evidence about the Petitioner's role in judging the work of others as a juror for 
awards given br the II C ,I in Venezuela. I I vice 
president of the identifies seven awards in which the Petitioner participated as a juror between 
1979 and 2009. 5 Beyond their names, no information is provided about the awards, including their 
dates or time period in which the Petitioner acted as a judge. Of the seven awards, only one is 
identified as a national journalism award, as the rest named as regional or municipal awards. The 
Petitioner has not submitted evidence about the awards to establish their significance or that of her 
judging. I I does not identify the criteria for her selection in his letter, nor do the~ 
regulations in the record provide any requirements for jury selection, beyond mandating that there be 
at least one representative from the National School of Journalists. As such, the record does not 
establish that the Petitioner's selection as a juror marks that she has received the requisite acclaim and 
recognition in her field. 
Beyond her work wi!h.17 the record also contains a letter from~ _________ __. a dean 
at the University of~ating that the Petitioner "served as tutor, advisor and jury for the contest 
of opposition and merits presented by those professionals admitted to our institution as teachers and 
of the credentials and works of the professors aspiring to ascend into the ranks of [ faculty and research 
staff]."~------~ also indicates that the Petitioner has been a juror for postgraduate theses 
in one of the university's master's programs, and identifies five papers she reviewed. The Petitioner 
has not submitted evidence demonstrating that she has received any national or international acclaim 
for her work with the university, or that her position there, which began immediately after receiving 
her undergraduate degree, constitutes recognition of her achievements by the field. 
4 The Petitioner indicates that she was featured in another article from El Nacional in 2005. She submitted a photocopy 
of that article along with a letter from a translator who notes that the document is illegible and cannot be translated. The 
Petitioner provided a letter from~~--------- president and editor of El Nacional, indicating that she appeared 
in an article profiling Venezuelan women. However, the letter lacks sufficient information to determine what level of 
acclaim the article afforded the Petitioner. 
5 In support of her judging claim, the Petitioner has also submitted an article about the government ofLJ convening the 
2012 regional journalism award. However, the translation of the document is incomplete and therefore cannot be 
considered. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). We note, however, that the translation provided does not reference the Petitioner 
or indicate any relationship between her and this award. 
4 
Matter of R-R-R-L-
The Petitioner published two scholarly articles in the Analisis Financiero y Economico (AFE) 
magazine in 2004, as well as authored two books that were published in 2010, but the record lacks 
evidence demonstratinr that she received acclaim as a result. The record contains a letter from 
~--------~! editor for AFE, stating that the Petitioner was one of its columnists "writing 
and coordinating her journalistic columns I I and I I with [the Petitioner],' which 
analyzed and commented on Venezuelan socio-economic events." The Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence demonstrating her receipt of national or international recognition originating from her 
articles. 
The Petitioner has authored two books that were ublished in 2010 entitled 
I I andL--------~-~-------' In a letter 
froml I the former principal of the University of he states that the Petitioner 
"has made herself a name as an expert in matters of Social Communication, Advertising and Public 
Relations, but above all, in matters inherent to~~------~---....,,.. .... " He indicates 
that the Petitioner's students, her colleagues, academic institutions, and companies request her advice, 
but the record lacks corroborating evidence to support this claim. Although he states that her books 
"bring us an educational model of corporate social responsibility and public relations applicable to 
Master's degrees, doctorate programs or specializations on journalism, management, economics, 
business and business relationships whose professionals should have an exact knowledge of these 
concepts," the record does not demonstrate that any academic institution has incorporated her texts, or 
that she has received acclaim or recognition from the field for her work. 
Regarding the evidence the Petitioner submitted about her leading or critical role, the record reflects 
that she was the host of the program I I for "Tele~ision a Color, I I I I inl !Venezuela beginning in 1996. I ~he human resources 
manager for the organization, states that the Petitioner's innovative shows helped retain viewers and 
generate new audiences for the company's programming. He states that she broke ratings and 
contributed "to position [the channel] as one of the best TV channels in Venezuela." As discussed 
above, the articles about and awards for the Petitioner's work with this program and channel document 
its significance at the municipal and regional level, but do not establish the requisite national or 
international acclaim. 
Under 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3), a petitioner must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim 
and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. The Director held that 
the Petitioner had not sustained her recognition, noting the lapse in time between the recognition she 
received and the filing of the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the regulations do not 
indicate how recent an individual's acclaim must be to meet the terms "sustained national or 
international acclaim." She cites a USCIS policy memorandum which states that "sustained" acclaim 
means that it must be maintained over a long period of time that there is no definitive time frame for 
what constitutes "sustained" acclaim. 6 
Here, after review of the record in its entirety, we find that the Petitioner has not established that she 
has received acclaim at a national or international level, and thus need not address the issue of 
sustainment. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 14. 
5 
Matter of R-R-R-L-
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. The record does not demonstrate that she has garnered national or 
international acclaim and that she 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). 
The appeal will therefore be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799,806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-R-R-L-, ID# 2991511 (AAO July 2, 2019) 
6