dismissed EB-1A Case: Journalism

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 06 232 52383 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Sohn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3) and that the director applied incorrect standards in denying the petition. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
 8 C.F.R. fj 204,5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on July 27, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a journalist and/or anchor and/or reporter. 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). Ln determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
As aforementioned, each petition must be adjudicated on its own merits under the statutory provisions 
and regulations which apply. Thus, the petitioner's eligibility will be evaluated under the regulatory 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) relating to the immigrant classification as claimed by the 
petitioner. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner initially submitted the following as evidence for this criterion: 
1. A certificate, dated April 4, 2005, from the Nepal Anchors Association for the Best National 
Anchors Award; 
2. A certificate, dated November 24, 2004, from the TV Reporters Nepal for the Best 
Television Journalists Award; 
3. A certificate, dated December 7, 2003, from His Majesty's Government, Nepal, for the 
Foremost Reporters' Award; 
4. An award, dated December 12, 2003, from the National Press Club Nepal, for the National 
Reporters Award; 
5. Personal pictures of the petitioner receiving various honors with handwritten captions; 
6. A photograph of a letter of appreciation from the Nepalese Women Millennium Everest 
Expedition, dated Spring 2000; 
7. A letter fiom the Nepali Jansarnpark Samiti, dated December 23, 2004, notifying the 
petitioner that he will be honored for his help on "various institutions program directed at the 
re-establishment of democracy" (certification page was separate from translation); and 
8. A certificate fiom the Rotaract Club of Kathmandu, dated April 13, 2001, for completion of 
an Advanced Course of Master of Ceremony & Radio Journalism Training and for best grade 
on the final. 
Page 4 
The petitioner's affidavit also stated that he submitted a letter from - 
dated 2005. However, this evidence could not be located in the petitioner's submission. In response 
to the Request For Evidence ("WE"), the petitioner submitted the following evidence: 
9. A letter, dated July 4, 2007, from Nepal Anchors Association, which stated that the Best 
National Anchors' Award is awarded annually to one person chosen "among hundreds of 
competitors" by a "team of experts;" 
10. A letter, dated July 25, 2007, from a Program Producer of Nepal Television accompanied by 
his resume, which stated that "as far as I [he] know[s]" the petitioner was awarded the NTV 
Award in 2001, the Best National Anchors Award in 2005 and the National Reporters Award 
in 2003; 
1 1. A letter, dated July 3 1, 2007, from a Senior Correspondent of Kantipur Daily accompanied 
by his resume, which also confirmed the petitioner's receipt of the same awards as in item 
10; 
12. A letter, dated August 2, 2007, from the Vice President of the National Press Club, Nepal, 
which stated that a National Reporters Award is selected annually with a cash prize of NRS 
$25,000 by three members of the steering committee who are nominated by "highly 
respected and impartial professional figures;" 
13. A letter, dated August 1, 2007, from a jury member of the National Reporters Award 
accompanied by his resume; and 
14. A letter, dated September 8, 2007, from the President of the Reporters Club Nepal, which 
confirmed his award in 2003 of the National Reporters Award. 
In his decision, dated August 20, 2008, the director found that the evidence was not sufficient to 
meet this criterion. On appeal, no new evidence for this criterion was provided. We agree with the 
director that the petitioner failed to establish that he has received lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. 
The petitioner failed to provide independent documentation that any of these alleged awards 
constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in the beneficiary's field, 
such as evidence regarding the awards' prestige, selection process or candidates that the beneficiary 
was competing against or some other evidence consistent with national or international acclaim at 
the very top of the field. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
specifically requires that the beneficiary's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field 
of endeavor and places the burden on the petitioner to establish every element of this criterion. Aside 
from the actual awards or certificates, only recommendation letters were submitted to provide 
additional information regarding the awards. However, letters are not a substitute for objective 
evidence. Moreover, the letters only provide Mer information about two of the awards, the Best 
National Anchors Award and the Nepal Reporters Award. The letters fail to demonstrate specifically 
what makes these two awards prestigious. Further, these letters fail to describe the selection process 
including how the judges were selected to choose the recipients of the awards or their level of notoriety 
in Nepal. None of the evidence provides insight into the types of competitors that the petitioner was 
competing against in order to win these awards. The Ietters only indicate that there were hundreds of 
competitors for the Best National Anchors Award and the Nepal Reporters Award. In addition, items 
6, 7 and 8 appear to be solely participation certificates, rather than prizes or awards. Lastly, the 
photographs referred to in item 5 provide little evidence in support of this criterion. Although the 
director may have overreached when requiring that the award be "the most prestigious in the 
country," we concur with his ultimate conclusion that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient 
documentary evidence to establish the awards received are nationally or internationally recognized. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzjication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner initially submitted the following evidence: 
1. An identification card for TV Live, Nepal 1, that indicated that the petitioner was an assistant 
producerlanchor and that the card was issued in 2004; 
2. An identification card for TV Live, Nepal 1, that indicated that the petitioner was a 
correspondent/anchor and that the card was issued in 2005; 
3. A letter from the Fonner General Manager of Nepal TV and an Advisor of the Nepal 
Anchors and Journalists Association ("NAJA), accompanied by his resume, which indicated 
that the petitioner was a founding member of NAJA; 
4. An identification card from Image Metro that indicated that the petitioner was an anchor and 
that the card was valid until 2060 (dates not converted into Gregorian calendar); 
5. An identification card from Image Channel, which designated the petitioner as a reporter and 
indicated that the card was valid until 2059 (dates not converted into Gregorian calendar); 
6. A letter from the Federation of Nepalese Journalists ("FNJ"), dated April 15, 2008, indicating 
that the petitioner has been a member for eight years; 
7. A press pass from the Himalaya Times that indicated that the petitioner was a reporter and 
that the pass was valid until 1997; 
8. A letter from the Journalists Network Nepal, from the former president of FNJ, dated January 
2, 2006, that indicated the petitioner was a representative of Journalists' Network Nepal, 
among others; 
9. A temporary press pass from the government of India as a correspondent for Nepal One TV, 
which indicated the card is valid until 2005; 
10. A trade bulletin of FNJ with a summary translation which stated that the petitioner was a 
member; and 
11. A letter from the General Secretary of the National Press Union, undated, confirming that the 
petitioner has been a member of the National Press Union for the last ten years. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided the following: 
12. A letter, dated August 2, 2007, fro a, the President of FNJ accompanied by 
his resume, which confirmed that the petitioner became an FNJ member after fulfilling the 
two year requirement of reporting experience in national or international media; 
13. A letter, dated January 3, 2005, from the President of FNJ, thanking the 
petitioner for his involvement in FNJ and the policy and program committee; and 
14. Another letter from the Former General Manager of Nepal TV and Advisor of NAJA (see 
item 3) accompanied by his resume, dated July 30, 2007, which again indicated that the 
petitioner was a founding member of NAJA, and a former board member of NAJA and that 
characterized the organization as one with more than 300 general members and as having 
"tremendous credibility among journalists." 
The director's decision found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the 
membership qualifications for the organizations for which he claimed to belong. On appeal, no new 
evidence was provided. We agree with the director, finding also that the record lacks the evidence 
necessary to satisfy this criterion. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criteria, the petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, 
do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. 
Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership 
requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
None of the evidence in items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 or 9 is consistent with membership in an organization. 
Items 1, 2, 4 and 5 appear to be identification cards indicating the petitioner was an employee of 
Nepal 1 and of Image Metro. There was no information provided to show that Nepal 1 or Image 
Metro were associations rather than businesses. Moreover, items 7 and 9 are press passes and do not 
denote membership in any organization. 
Although the petitioner provides evidence that he is a member of NAJA, FNJ and the National Press 
Union, aside from item 10, all the evidence consists of only letters, rather than objective independent 
evidence. Nonetheless, item 10 is deficient because the complete document was not provided and 
only a summary translation was submitted, rather than a full translation as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.2(b)(3). Moreover, the record lacks evidence to establish that outstanding achievements are 
required for membership in any of these three organizations. For example, no evidence was 
included (such as membership bylaws or official admission requirements) for any of these 
organizations to show that they require outstanding achievements of their members. Item 12 
indicates that two years of reporting experience, either nationally or internationally, is required for 
membership in FNJ. However, such a requirement is very minimal and not consistent with an 
outstanding achievement. 
The petitioner also failed to show that his membership to be selected as a member of FNJ or the 
National Press Union was judged by recognized national or international experts in the field. There was 
no evidence to indicate who judged his memberslp into either of these organizations. Moreover, as a 
purported founding member of NAJA, there was no evidence regarding how other members were 
judged within the organization after he began this association. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien 's work in thejield for which class$cation is sought. Such 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The petitioner submitted an article from The Telegraph Weekly, dated July 27,2005, entitled "It's all 
my dedication, skills and experience: Gautam Dahal." The article fails to include the author's name 
as required by the parameters of the regulation. In addition, the petitioner claims in his affidavit that 
he has submitted an article regarding his success in journalism from Saptahik Aawaz, dated June 20, 
2006. The petitioner claims in his affidavit that The Telegraph Weekly and the Saptahik Aawaz are 
popular weekly newspapers in Nepal. However, no evidence to substantiate this claim was 
provided. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Further, 
the petitioner also provided many articles that he wrote, which were not about him but, rather, were 
written by him. 
The RFE requested evidence that illustrates the significance of the publications submitted. The 
petitioner's affidavit in response to the RFE argued that, 
[his] anchoring, interview; investigative report and writing on the hot issues of 
contemporary political, social; literature and economic matter were extensively published 
in major electronic and print media. 
In addition, in response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted many recommendation letters to 
confirm his articles, which were initially submitted, were published. However, the regulatory 
guidelines for this criterion require that the published material must be "about the alien." These articles 
were not about the petitioner but were written by him. They, therefore, fail to comply with the 
requirement that the published materials be about the alien. 
Further, although most of the letters served to confirm the petitioner's involvement in providing 
contributing articles to various publications, one of the letters provided additional information that we 
considered. For example, a letter from the Press Council Nepal, dated August 2, 2007, indicated that 
The Telegraph Weekly and Aawaj weekly are "duly registered" publications in Nepal and "fall almost 
under grade 'A' according to the Audit Bureau of Circulation." 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulation, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.1 
The petitioner failed to submit evidence to establish that the articles submitted about him were 
published in a professional or major trade publication or other major media. Regional coverage or 
coverage in a publication read by only a small segment of a country's total population is not 
evidence of national or international acclaim. In the instant case, only two articles purportedly 
related to the petitioner and could be considered for this criterion. However, the only information 
we have regarding the sources of these articles, The Telegraph Weekly and Aawaj weekly, is that they 
are "duly registered" publications in Nepal and "fall almost under grade 'A' according to the Audit 
Bureau of Circulation." This information does not provide evidence that these publications have 
significant national or international distribution, or any other information to support that they should be 
considered professional or major trade publications, or another form of major media. 
For all of the above stated reasons, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedjeld of speczjcation for which classzfication is 
sought. 
The petitioner initially submitted the following evidence: 
1. An appreciation certificate, dated September 23, 2004, for the petitioner's service as a 
member of the judge committee to recommend the nominees for the National Reporters 
Award, 2004; 
2. A letter from the chairman of the Reporter's Club of Nepal, which stated that the petitioner 
acted as the single judge in evaluating the Nepal Young TV Journalists Awards, 2003; 
3. A summary translation of the Naya Satmarg Monthly issue for MayIJune 2003 in which the 
petitioner acted as editor, wherein only one page of the issue was submitted; 
4. A summary translation of the Sajha Smarika bulletin, dated March 8, 2002, in which the 
petitioner acted as editor, wherein only two pages of the issue were submitted; 
5. A summary translation of the Memoir publication, dated 2001, in which the petitioner acted 
as a writer and editor, wherein only two pages of the issue were submitted; 
6. A summary translation of the Ghumlfiri Rumjatar, a publication by a Nepal Youth Club, in 
which the petitioner acted as a writer and editor, wherein two pages of the publication were 
provided; 
7. A summary translation of the Naya Satmarg Monthly issue for November/December 2001 in 
which the petitioner acted as editor and writer, wherein only one page of the issue was 
submitted; 
1 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
8. A synopsis of the almanac of contemporary Nepali persons, called JP Foundation: An 
Introduction, dated April 14, 2000, which the petitioner edited and submitted a single page as 
evidence; 
9. A few pages from Sangam, written in English, a Rotract Club publication for its 6th 
installation ceremony 2001, published by the petitioner who provided four pages from it; 
10. A summary translation of the Naya Satmarg Monthly issue for AprilIMay 2003 in which the 
petitioner acted as editor, wherein only one page of the issue was submitted; 
11. A letter from the Lion's Club indicating that it planned to publish a Souvenir, and appointed 
the petitioner to be an editor of it (the publication was not provided, just letter); and 
12. A translated letter from the National Sagarmatha Weekly that indicated the petitioner would 
be a guest editor for two years, beginning in June of 2000. (The certification was separate 
from the translation.) 
In his WE, the director requested further information regarding the' significance of the competitions 
that the petitioner judged. In response to the RFE, the following evidence was submitted: 
13. A letter, dated August 2, 2007, from the Vice President of the National Press Club, Nepal, 
which confinned the petitioner acted as one judge of three members of the steering 
committee for the National Reporters Award for 2004, who are considered "highly respected 
and impartial professional figures;" 
14. A translated letter from 
 (accompanied by his resume), Chairman of the 
National News Agency, that gave the petitioner accolades for his talent in journalism, 
including his editing skills; (The certification was separate from the translation.) 
15. A letter from -, Chairman of the JP Foundation, which confirmed that the 
petitioner was an Executive Editor for the foundation and discussed his editorial capacity and 
ability to judge other writers; 
16. A letter, dated July 25, 2007, from the Managing Director of Promoters Nepal, which 
confirmed that the petitioner worked for this production house for a year in 2004 as a script 
editor and was very talented; 
17. A letter, dated July 26, 2007, from the Chairman of the Academy of Audio Visual Arts and 
Sciences (AAVAS)(accompanied by his resume), which stated that the petitioner worked at 
AAVAS as a script editor and producer, and that praised his abilities; and 
18. A letter from the founding editor of Nepal Bani Weekly, (accompanied 
by his resume), dated July 26, 2007, which stated that the petitioner worked under his 
"editorial leadership." 
The director found that the petitioner failed to meet this criterion, and we agree. The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or 
her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's 
participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to 
evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the 
extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a national competition for top 
journalists is of far greater probative value than judging a local competition for youth or novices. 
The petitioner provided evidence regarding his service as a judge for the National Reporters Award 
in 2004 and for the Nepal Young Journalists Award in 2003. For both of these competitions, the 
record lacks evidence such as the level of prestige associated with judging the competitions, the 
requirements necessary to become a judge for them, the names of the journalists the petitioner 
evaluated and/or their levels of expertise and the prestige associated with judging such competitions. 
There was only minimal information provided in the fom of a letter, item 13, which indicated that 
the petitioner was one of three judges who chose the National Reporters Award Winner in 2004. 
The letter generally describes the judges as being "nominated among the top brass journalists" and 
as "highly respected and impartial professional figures." This evidence, which is not independent 
evidence, fails to provide any specificity regarding the competitions in which the petitioner judged. 
Items 3 through 12 and items 14 through 18, all relate to the petitioner's experience as an editor. For 
items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, the petitioner failed to provide a complete copy of the original document. 
Moreover, only a summary translation was provided for items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10, rather than a 
full translation as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). The reference letters that were submitted 
confirm the petitioner's role as an editor on various publications and praise his talent as an editor. 
However, none of that evidence establishes the level of prestige associated with the petitioner being 
an editor of the publications. Moreover, many of the publications do not appear to be national 
publications, but rather publications for local organizations or small bulletins. As such, although the 
petitioner may have evaluated various writers to publish these newsletters and other publications, the 
record failed to provide support for the fact that these publications were national and prestigious 
publications and the writers who successfully submitted articles were professional writers with a 
high levels of expertise. The routine duties performed by the petitioner in his position as an editor 
are not indicative of this highly restrictive classification. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. 
The petitioner, in his initial affidavit, claimed that "as a TV program producer, anchor, journalist and 
expert of the field [he] made the original, scientific and artistic contribution of major significance in 
my [his] field." In order to support this claim, he provided various reference letters. In response to 
the WE, additional recommendation letters were provided. Further, the petitioner argued in his 
affidavit in response to the RFE that "journalists work could be of major significance" and discussed 
his experience in terms of where he has worked and that his expertise lies in print and electronic 
media. 
In his decision, the director found that the petitioner failed to establish how the "petitioner's articles 
and reports have thus far been of major significance to his field." On appeal, counsel's brief 
indicates that the many reports and newspaper articles, written by the petitioner, represent evidence 
for this criterion. Prior to appeal, such evidence was not utilized for this criterion. Counsel also 
argues that the petitioner's articles have been published in "A" grade major media in Nepal and 
major publications, and therefore is of major significance. Additionally, counsel believes that the 
recommendation letters provide support for the claim that the petitioner's articles have been of major 
significance in his field. 
However, none of these letters indicate a specific contribution made by the petitioner. While they 
indicate his experience in Nepalese media, they fail to demonstrate specifically how the petitioner 
made a contribution of major significance in his field. Moreover, while reference letters can provide 
useful information about an alien's qualifications or help in assigning weight to certain evidence, such 
letters are not a substitute for objective evidence of the alien's achievements and recognition as required 
by the statute and regulations. The nonexistence of required evidence creates a presumption of 
ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, the classification sought requires "extensive 
documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed 
regulations implementing the statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be 
set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to 
present more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 
30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Primary evidence of achievements and recognition is of far greater 
probative value than the opinions of one's professional acquaintances. 
In addition, although the articles were not even addressed as pertaining to this criterion until the 
appeal, the articles themselves do not support the proposition that the petitioner has made a 
contribution of major significance. Moreover, the petitioner failed to provide complete translations 
of his articles as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3) and only provided summary translations. 
Without the proper translations, the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the 
petitioner's claims and the actual content of the articles cannot be ascertained. 
As discussed above, the petitioner has failed to establish how his work has influenced his field and to 
detail specifically what contribution he has made of major significance in his field. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the $eld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner initially provided many articles that he wrote which were published in magazines and 
weekly publications. The petitioner also submitted translations for each article, which he referred to 
as a "synopsis" in his affidavit. For two of the articles, however, he claimed that he provided a 
"fully translated English version," yet whether the translation is complete is unclear since these 
articles are still on the list of documents with a header indicating such articles are accompanied by a 
synopsis. In addition, as with each of the petitioner's submissions, the petitioner provided a blanket 
certification page listing the documents that were certified. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(3), any 
document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English 
language translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The 
articles were accompanied by only partial English language translations and the individual 
translations were not certified by the translator as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Without the 
proper certified translations, the AAO is unable to confirm the accuracy of the petitioner's statements 
regarding his claimed published materials. 
In his RFE, the director requested evidence to establish how the articles written for newspapers and 
magazines qualify as scholarly. In response to the WE, the petitioner's affidavit argued that the 
articles he wrote that were "published in different newspapers were scholarly because it was based 
on the research." In addition, he provided various recommendation letters that he believed 
confirmed such publications were scholarly. However, the reference letters did not provide evidence 
to establish that the magazines and weekly publications in which the petitioner's articles were 
published were scholarly or academic rather than journalistic and informative. Rather, the letters 
submitted on the petitioner's behalf only confirmed that the petitioner's articles were published. The 
record lacks evidence such as that the petitioner's articles garnered attention from scholars. As 
writing articles is inherent to the journalism profession, simply performing ones regular duties within 
the profession is not evidence that the petitioner meets this highly restrictive classification. In 
addition, such recommendations cannot take the place of independent evidence. On appeal, this 
criterion was not claimed nor was any new evidence provided for it. Therefore, the petitioner failed 
to supplement the record to demonstrate that his articles qualify as scholarly. 
Further, the record failed to prove that any of the petitioner's articles were published in any 
professional or major trade publications, or other major media. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner generally claimed that his role as a journalist was leading and critical and cited to the 
recommendation letters that he provided to substantiate these claims. In addition, the petitioner 
submitted two letters from the Former General Manager of Nepal Television, who confirmed that the 
petitioner was a founding member of NAJA and that he also represents several associations related 
to Nepalese electronic and print media such as FNJ and NAJA. However, his responsibilities as a 
founding member or as a representative for these various groups were not mentioned. In response to 
the RFE, the petitioner provided recommendation letters indicating that he is a leading journalist. 
No new evidence was provided on appeal. 
In order to establish that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or 
establishment with a distinguished reputation, he must establish the nature of his role within the 
organization or establishment and its reputation. The position should also be of such significance 
that the alien's selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim. Although the petitioner provided evidence of his involvement as a 
founding member of NAJA or as a representative for other associations, he failed to show that such 
involvement is commensurate with a leading or critical role. Additionally, although many letters 
claimed that the petitioner played a leading role in Nepalese journalism, such letters failed to 
distinguish his career and his specific employment at various media agencies from others in his field. 
The evidence further lacks proof that the organizations for which the petitioner served or was 
employed by had a "distinguished reputation." There was no independent evidence included 
regarding the background of the various media outlets and organizations for which the petitioner 
worked or their standing in the community or world. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
The petitioner initially submitted a letter from TN Acharya & Co., Chartered Accountants, dated April 
9,2006, which indicated that the petitioner's salary was "about 30 thousand US dollar." In his response 
to the WE, the petitioner noted that his Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker ("Form 1-140") contained 
incorrect information which stated that his salary was $40,000 instead of $30,000. The petitioner 
submitted another letter from Acharya & Co., Chartered Accountants, dated July 29,2007, which stated 
that he was earning $1,400 more per month in 2004 than other journalists in Nepal. This letter was 
accompanied by an annual audit report for 2004. A letter from TV Live was also submitted that 
indicated the petitioner's salary, which was characterized as "extraordinarily higher than the salary that 
other reporters are getting from this office." In addition, recommendation letters from the Center for 
Professional Journalism Studies and the Institute of Professional Journalism were submitted and 
indicated that these organizations have paid the petitioner at a higher rate because of the quality of his 
work. 
In his decision, the director found that the evidence failed to establish that the beneficiary received a 
high remuneration for his services in relation to others in his field. We concur with the director. We 
also find that because a discrepancy exists between the petitioner's salary as claimed by petitioner and 
the letters from his accountant, and his salary as listed on the Form 1-140, the petitioner should resolve 
such inconsistency with additional independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile 
such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Moreover, the 
inconsistencies themselves arose from different claims made in the petition and brief. None of this 
evidence was supported by independent evidence, such as the beneficiary's tax returns. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornrn. 1972)). 
Moreover, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence 
that the beneficiary has commanded a high salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner's 
accountant, as well as two of his employers, claimed that the petitioner received a higher salary than 
other journalists. However, the source of these claims is unknown. Further, it is unclear who the 
petitioner was being compared to in order to make such a determination. There is no indication that 
the petitioner has earned a level of compensation that places him among the highest paid journalists in 
Nepal, the United States or any other country. 
Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at the national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.