dismissed EB-1A Case: Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services·· 
MATIER OF A-N-B-R-P-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 13, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a journalist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(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 although the Petitioner 
satisfied three of the regulatory criteria, she did not establish that she is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor and that she possesses the requisite national or international 
acclaim. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In her appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
documentation and a brief stating that she has sustained her extraordinary abilities as a journalist. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(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, 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-N-B-R-P-
(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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
sustained acclaim and the 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 categories listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including items such as awards, 
published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not bythe quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a journalist who has worked as a television hostess and a communication advisor to 
two former Venezuelan presidents. As the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has 
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). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the published material criterion under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and the leading or critical 
role criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Specifically, the Director indicated that "a few [of 
the submitted articles] were found to be qualifying and related to the [Petitioner]." In addition, the 
Petitioner served as a juror of theses at Further, the Petitioner was 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-N-B-R-P-
employed as a and for former 
and and as a television hostess for on 
A review of the record of proceedings supports the Director's findings that the 
Petitioner has met at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will conduct a final merits 
determination. Specifically, we evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that she has sustained national or international acclaim and that her 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, making her one of 
the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze the 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 section203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 201.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown 'her eligibility. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner received a bachelor's of science in speech communication, 
marketing, and advertising from in 1995. From 1997-1999, the Petitioner served 
as the director of art and culture and as a professor for one course at 
Thereafter, the Petitioner worked as the and for former 
from 1999-2001 and has been the for former 
since 2000. From 2002-2004, the Petitioner was an 
opinion writer for Around the same time, the Petitioner also represented 
an pro-democracy group, and two years later she 
founded a non-nonviolent, pro-democracy movement. From 2006-2009, the 
Petitioner hosted an investigative journalism program, which aired on 
until the government revoked the channel's broadcasting license. After 2009, 
although the Petitioner's documentation does not show the dates of her employment or activities, her 
evidence reflects that ~he has consulted with to restore its rights to broadcast, advised 
on socio-political issues, has counseled with the relating to 
communications and media, and was hired to prepare a compilation of former 
life and work. Most recently, the Petitioner has reported for various Internet sites, 
such as and 
As seen above, the Petitioner has broad experience in the journalistic field ranging from print, 
television, and radio to press secretary. Having diverse experience, however, is not necessarily 
tantamount to a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 
101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). The Petitioner's documentary evidence mainly relates to her political 
activism and does not show sustained national or international acclaim as a journalist or demonstrate 
that she is one of the small percentage who has risen to the top of her field. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-N-B-R-P-
Although the Petitioner offered numerous articles for the published material criterion under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), most of them reference her involvement with political demonstrations and 
associations. The record contains many articles from publications, such as and 
which quote the Petitioner or report her appearance at democratic rallies. The coverage, 
however, is not about the Petitioner relating to her work in the field of journalism. The record 
contains only two articles that discuss the Petitioner as a journalist ("Television New Season of 
m and 
Although the Petitioner established that is a major medium, she 
did not offer evidence of the status of Further, the Petitioner did not include the date 
and/or author for several of the articles as required by the regulatory criterion. On appeal, the 
Petitioner offers a screenshot from dated May 2009, in which the Petitioner 
provided a statement regarding her kidnapping in a hospital while she was reporting for The 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the website is considered a major medium, nor did she show the 
article is about her rather than about the group's kidnapping encounter. 
Thus, the record contains one qualifying article, from 2006, which discusses the Petitioner's role as 
hostess of the revamped show. The petitioner did not demonstrate that a single article published 
approximately 10 years prior to the filing of the petition is consistent with the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. Moreover, even if we 
considered all of the articles in the record, the most recent one is from 2009, approximately seven 
years ago. 
Regarding the judging criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the record reflects that the 
Petitioner judged theses of students at in 1999. An evaluation of the 
significance of the Petitioner's judging experience is sanctioned under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-
11, to determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this 
classification. Without evidence that sets the Petitioner apart from others in her field, such as 
documentation that she has served as a judge of professional journalists rather than aspiring students 
or amateurs, the record relating to this criterion does not demonstrate that she "is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(2). Further, 
as the Petitioner has not participated as a judge in over 17 years, this documentation does not show 
the required sustained national or international acclaim for this highly restrictive classification. 
Concerning the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the Petitioner 
established that she served as under former 
from 1999-2001 and hostess of from 2006-2009. Although we acknowledge the 
importance of the Petitioner's position as press secretary for the former president, as well as the 
television ratings for the Petitioner has not shown that her employment since 2009 has 
garnered national or international attention consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field." 
H.R. Rep. No. 59. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director undervalued her evidentiary significance as a 
reporter for from 2006-2009 and disregarded the program's success and her national acclaim 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-N-B-R-P-
from it. Furthermore, she indicates that she sustained her investigative journalist acclaim after the 
station's shutdown by consulting with media outlets, working with opposition leaders, and 
freelancing with alternative media. The Petitioner provided evidence reflecting that in 2009, 
placed first in the ratings for paid television and second in the overall market. As such, we 
acknowledge that the Petitioner was recognized and garnered acclaim as a hostess and reporter for 
and contributed to its success. However, the Petitioner has not shown that she has sustained 
that national acclaim as a journalist since her departure in 2009 from the television program. 
Although the Petitioner submitted documentation confirming her employment since she has 
not established that such work has been recognized at a level consistent with being among the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the journalistic field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 
(3). 
The recency of the Petitioner's renown is relevant as the classification requires a record of sustained 
national or international acclaim. As discussed above, the Petitioner indicated that, since 2009, she 
has consulted with and the however she did 
not demonstrate the impact of her advisory roles or otherwise show that they are representative of 
continued national or international acclaim. Similarly, although the Petitioner submitted evidence of 
her recent work as a reporter for several digital media outlets, there is not sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that "her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
Further, in former letter, he indicated that the Petitioner currently 
serves as "a most important player in the communicational area of my office and is in charge of . 
managing it with an unmatchable distinction." The letter, however, does not describe the duties or 
activities involved in this role, nor does it demonstrate the · recognition associated with this position 
within the field of journalism. Likewise, the Petitioner offered a letter from 
the son of former who stated that he hired the Petitioner about a 
year ago to prepare a compilation of his father's life's work. The letter does not indicate if the 
Petitioner completed her work, and if so, whether it brought her any favorable attention. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitteo as expert testimony. See Matter 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final recognized determination regarding eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner ' s personal contacts is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 500 n.2 (BIA 
2008). Again, the Petitioner did not sufficiently show that "her achievements have been recognized 
in the field of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In summary, the Petitioner's evidence confirms that she has worked in various venues of the 
journalism field. This experienCe, however, is not sufficient to establish that she has garnered 
sustained national or international acclaim or is one of the small percentage at the very top of her 
field of endeavor. We find that the record as a whole does not reflect extensive documentation 
showing that the Petitioner's achievements have been recognized in the field. 
5 
Matter of A-N-B-R-P-
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that she qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Accordingly, she has not established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-N-B-R-P-, ID# 39907 (AAO Dec. 13, 2016) 
6