dismissed EB-1A Case: Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 6559665 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 29, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a journalist , seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first preference 
classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability 
through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in 
their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that although the 
Petitioner satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria , as required , he did not show sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act make s 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability , and 
(iii) the alien 's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(5)(4) allows a petitioner 
to submit comparable material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-)(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates current employment as a manager of brand and editorial for I I in 
Colombia. Because the Petitioner has not established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled three criteria relating to 
published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), 
and high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Although we agree with Director regarding the leading 
or critical role criterion, for the reasons discussed later, we do not concur with the Director's decision 
relating to the published material and high salary criteria. Moreover, for the explanations discussed 
below, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills any other previously claimed criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on a .__ _________ _.' from the 
I ~ in 2007. In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate that he received the prizes or awards, and they are nationally or internationally recognized 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for 
granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field include, but are not limited to, the criteria 
used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international significance of the prizes or awards in 
the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 2 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 Id. 
2 
The record contains documentation reflecting that D magazine received the prize rather than the 
Petitioner. For instance, a screenshot from guia.com indicates that "this newspaper I I is grng to I 
have worldwide recognition at thel bontest of 2007 in the brand category that the 
... organizes each ear." ( em hasis added). Further, screenshots from community.ulule.com shows 
that "[ t ]he are awarded annually to innovative newspapers." ( emphasis 
added). In addition,__ __ ~ ____ ....,. founder oti ,I ~xyresses
1 that "[d]uring [the Petitioner's] time as editor-in-chief ofc=] the publication received a 
I I in the Brand Cate~' (emphasis added). Moreover,~ _______ _,,... 
journalist, states that'! lawardedl__J the Best Brand in 2007." (emphasis ladded]- Although 
the documentation reflects that the Petitioner accepted the prize on behalf of he did not 
demonstrate that I I awarded the prize to him. The description of this type of evidence in the 
regulation provides that the focus should be on the alien's receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed 
to his or her employer's receipt of the awards or prizes. 3 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not establish that the '.__ _________ __,' is nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field. Although the Petitioner submitted 
documentation regardin~ land background eligibility information relating to the lrizes, bt does 
not reflect the national or international significance of the prize. 4 The evidlence, srch a 201 7 
prize pamphlet, promotional material froml I and screenshots from s website, does not 
mention or demonstrate the national or international recognition of excellence in the field. In addition, 
while I I indicated that "past winners ofthel O I[] include prominent 
newspapers such as The Guardian, The Tampa Bay Times and The New York Times," the Petitioner 
did not show how other publications receiving such prize is in-and-of-itself evidence of national or 
international recognition for excellence. Here, the Petitioner provided insufficient evidence to identify 
the j~ _________ _.t' as a nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence in 
the field consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner argued that he meets this criterion based on membership with the California Chicano 
News Media Association (CCNMA) and the.International Federation of Journalists (IJF). In order to 
satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based on being 
judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field 
for which classification is sought. 5 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at6 .... -~-------~ 
4 1 I indicated that he ~ and administered the '---------~" as executive dii;ector of youth 
engagement and new literacy atl__Jand the prize was later replaced in 2017 by a youth category ofthd: I I I 
5 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
3 
Regarding CCNMA, the Petitioner submitted the bylaws reflecting that members "shall be 
Chicano/Latino and other men and women dedicated to the purposes of this corporation, who obtain 
primary economic support by gathering, writing and presenting news, and who, upon recommendation 
of the membership committee, are elected by the vote of the Board of Directors." Here, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate how being dedicated to CCNMA and economically supported by being involved 
in the news reflect outstanding achievements consistent with this regulatory criterion. Moreover, the 
bylaws do not discuss a candidate's achievements, let alone outstanding achievements, as an essential 
condition for membership with CCNMA. 
Further, the Petitioner provided a letter from.__ _________ ____. fashion stylist, who claims 
that "[ m ]embers of the organization must undergo a rigorous application process to ensure that the 
organization consists solely of the highest regarded journalists in the field," and the Petitioner "was 
extended membership into the organization after a careful review of his outstanding achievements." 
Moreover, a letter froml I senior writer, asserts: 
[The Petitioner] was accepted into the CCNMA ... given his outstanding achievement 
in the industry. CCNMA is a renowned institution recognized for being the oldest 
regional organization of journalists of color in the country. The organization's Board 
of Directors, which consists of high ranking professionals from renowned media 
outlets, thoroughly evaluated [the Petitioner's] accomplishments in the journalism 
industry and extensive portfolio before approving his membership into the institution. 
The letters, however, do not indicate how the authors are aware of the Petitioner's membership with 
CCNMA, nor do they explain how they know of the membership requirements for the association. 
Although both letters use the regulatory term "outstanding achievements," they do not contain 
detailed, specific information defining what constitutes outstanding achievements. Repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajfd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that recognized national or international experts judge the 
outstanding achievements for membership. 6 As indicated above, the bylaws reflect a membership 
committee provides a recommendation and the board of directors vote for membership. Although he 
submitted screenshots from CCNMA's website reflecting the pictures and names of nine board 
members, the Petitioner did not provide farther evidence showing that they qualify as recognized 
national or international experts. In addition, while I !claimed that the board of directors 
"consists of high ranking professionals," he did not offer detailed information justifying his assertion. 
As it relates to IJF, the Petitioner provided information regarding the principles on the conduct of 
journalists, such as respect for truth and for the right of the public to truth is the first duty of the 
journalist. In addition, he submitted screenshots regarding IFJ's international press card stating that 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 6-7. 
4 
"[t]he IFJ Press Card is the world's oldest and most reputable accreditation and provides instant 
confirmation that the bearer is a working journalist." Moreover, "[t]he IFJ Press Card is available to 
the members of national associations and unions of journalists that, in tum, are members of the IFJ." 
Here, he did not show the membership requirements for IFJ rather than the requirements for an IFJ 
press card. Regardless, he did not establish that membership in national associations and unions of 
journalists represents outstanding achievements. 7 Moreover, he did not demonstrate that membership 
with IFJ is judged by recognized national or international experts. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion without identifying the qualifying material 
and explaining his determination. In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate 
published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well 
as the title, date, and author of the material. 8 Because the record does not reflect that the Petitioner 
established eligibility under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), we will withdraw the findings 
of the Director for this criterion. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on four articles from 
eluniversal.com, Ultimas Noticias, diversomagazine.com, and guia.com. However, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate the authors of the articles. The inclusion of the author is not optional but a regulatory 
requirement. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the articles from Ultimas Noticias, 
diversomagazine.com, and guia.com reflect published material about him relating to his work. 
Specifically, the Ultimas Noticias article is about th~ lwith the Petitioner mentioned as 
conducting the ceremony. Further, the diversomagazine.com article relates to upcoming projects of 
Owith the Petitioner describing the projects rather than material about him. In addition, the 
guia.com article reports onD's receipt ofthel laward with the Petitioner noted as traveling to 
the ceremony. Articles that are not about an alien do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., 
Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding 
that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not establish that diversomagazine.com and guia.com reflect 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. As it relates to diversomagazine.com, 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7 (providing that relevant factors that may lead to a conclusion 
that the alien's membership in the associations was not based on outstanding achievements in the field include, but are not 
limited to, instances where the alien's membership was based on a requirement, compulsory or otherwise, for employment 
in certain occupations, such as union membership or guild affiliation for actors). 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
5 
the Petitioner submitted a screenshot from histats.com showing that it averages around 1.2 visits per 
day. However, the Petitioner did not show the significance of the figures or visits and demonstrate 
how such data reflects status as a major medium. 9 Further, based on the low daily visits, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that the website is tantamount to a major medium. In addition, the Petitioner 
pointed out that diversomagazine.com received almost 4 million total visits. However, according to 
histats.com, diversomagazine.com was created in December 2007, and the total visits are accumulated 
until January 2015. Here, the Petitioner did not establish the significance of 4 million visits in seven 
years as evidence of a major medium. 
Moreover, the Petitioner provided screenshots from guia.com relating to "links to those relevant 
websites of and about Venezuela." However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the screenshots 
show evidence of guia.com's status as a major medium. Although the Petitioner claimed that guia.com 
"is one of the top 500 publications in the whole country of Venezuela," the screenshots do not support 
his assertions. In addition, the Petitioner did not establish where guia.com falls within the "top 500 
publications" in Venezuela. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted a Y ouTube screenshot of a video posted by I t from the ~ 
I I' The Petitioner claimed that the video reflected an interview of him broadcasted on 
Channel 1 in Venezuela. However, the Petitioner did not provide a transcription of the video 
demonstrating published material about him relating to his work. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
establish that I I represents a major medium. Although the Petitioner provided 
television ratings for channels in Venezuela, the issue is whether the television show is a major 
medium. Further, the television ratings refer to 2017 while the Petitioner claimed that the interview 
occurred in 2007. In addition, the Petitioner indicated that the Y ouTube video received over 13,000 
views. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the significance of 13,000 views on a YouTube 
channel. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion, and 
we withdraw the Director's decision for this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contended that his creation of a bilingual website, the increased circulation for c=J 
and an advertising campaign fo~._ __ _.Uemonstrate his eligibility for this criterion. In order to meet 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has he made 
original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 1° For example, a 
petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have 
remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance 
in the field. 
9 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation (on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
10 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
6 
As it relates to the bilingual website,! I the Petitioner provided screenshots 
claiming it to be "the first bilingual website specializing iJ I' that "travels around the world 
~o decipher the digital code of I ~' He submitted an excerpt from the book,I I 
L___...,,.._J which recommends the website and indicates that it "take[ s] the trouble to write all the content 
of their biogs in two languages, which entails a considerable extra effort." However, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that a citation and recommendation from a single book shows that his website 
rises to a level of major significance. The Petitioner, for example, did not offer evidence showing that 
his website has been extensively cited, referenced, or visited. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted a letter from senior editor and content 
creator at the ~----~--------___,....who stated that he created ' 
an audiovisual initiative for which "was heavily inspired inL-------1,-------,_____J and the multi­
platform work [the Petitioner] did through its website." Moreover,~---~ indicated that the 
elements id I "truly inspired the work that [he] currently do[ es] with I I 
I I, where [he] interview[s] personalities usinf the techniques [he] learned from [the Petitioner] 
through his innovative website." While I _ compliments the Petitioner's website and credits 
it for inspiring him to create his own initiative, he did not explain how the Petitioner's website greatly 
impacted or influenced the overall field beyond his own project. 11 
~rdinO, the Petitioner claimed that "[h ]is innovative strategies and decision to implement the 
L.....J Awards led to C=1 receiving al I award." In addition, the Petitioner referenced background 
information and artilles pretously reviewed and discussed under the awards and published material 
criteria regarding the ward. Although the documentation reflects the Petitioner's contributions 
toO, such as serving in the position as co-editor and implementing and hosting thd l 
he did not demonstrate how the evidence shows his contributions of major significance in the overall 
field. For example, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his co-editing position or I I has 
greatly influenced or impacted the journalism field in a significant manner. 
Similarly, he submitted a letter from L--------r-~~~ 1 ist, who praised the Petitioner for 
growing and diversifying c:::J and indicated that th had two important editions, with 
it receiving al I award in 2007. Again,........,~-~___. iscussed the Petitioner's contributions to 
c=]rather than explaining how the Petitioner has made original contributions of major significance 
in the greater field. I I for instance, did not elaborate and show how the Petitioner's 
contributions have been implemented in the overall field or how they have somehow resulted in a 
substantial effect in the field. 
As it pertains to the advertising campaign forl I the Petitioner presented screenshots from 
buzzfeed.com, latintimes.com, and creativity-online.com reporting on the marketing campaign, D I I' which created altars forl I deceased characters. Moreover, the Petitioner 
submitted screenshots from an unidentified website reflecting thatl I received a silver 
award in the best multicultural event campaign at the 2018 I I fo~ ~ s ~ , I' 
campaign. In addition, the Petitioner submitted a letter from I I chief marketing officer at 
11 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not conoborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
7 
~--J who stated that the Petitioner "lead the highly successful I l campaign that took 
place at the I I cemetery," and he "showed his exceptional insight to successfully 
communicate with the Spanish speaking audience." Moreover,! I vice president of brand 
and editori~l aft I indicated the Petitioner's involvement in "set[ting] up five real altars dedicated 
to some of1 I most beloved deceased characters." While the letters described the Petitioner's 
role in leading the campaign and setting-up altars, they did not demonstrate that he created the 
marketing campaign resulting in an original contribution. In fact, as indicated ________ ~ 
received an event campaign award for its work. Regardless, the letters praised the Petitioner for his 
involvement in the campaign without showing that it resulted in a majorly significant contribution in 
the field consistent with this regulatory criterion. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not show that the 
1 I campaign significantly influenced or impacted the greater field outside of I I 
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining how his work 
qualifies as original contributions of major significance in the field. Letters that specifically articulate 
how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance in the field and its impact on subsequent 
work add value. 12 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not 
add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this 
criterion. 13 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. 
Att): Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
In order to demonstrate eligibility for this criterion, a petitioner must show that his work was on 
display, and the venues were artistic exhibitions or showcases. 14 The Petitioner claimed to meet this 
criterion based on authoring articles on websites for Hoy and Variety Latino, publishing articles and 
video onl Is social media accounts, and reporting a~ 12015 for Variety Latino. 
However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that any of these instances involves displaying his work 
products at artistic venues consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner argued that his evidence should also be considered as comparable 
evidence. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria 
do not readily apply to his occupation. 15 A petitioner should explain why he has not submitted 
evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), as well as 
why the evidence he has included is "comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 16 
12 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
13 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff din pait 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
14 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
15 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
16 Jd. 
8 
General assertions that any of the ten objective criteria do not readily apply to an occupation are not 
probative and should be discounted. 17 Here, the Petitioner did not show why he cannot off er evidence 
that meets at least three criteria. The fact that the Petitioner provided documentation that does not 
meet at least three criteria is not evidence that a journalist could not do so. In fact, the Petitioner 
claimed to meet seven other criteria. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this criterion, including through the 
submission of comparable evidence. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
As indicated earlier, the Director found that the Petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. In 
order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that his salary or remuneration is high 
relative to the compensation paid to others working in the field. 18 For the reasons outlined below, the 
record does not reflect that the Petitioner provided sufficient documentary evidence showing that 
fulfills this criterion, and the Director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on his salaries at two 
positions a~~--~l Specifically, the Petitioner submitted evidence showing his salary in his previous 
role as the "Social Media Coordinator" and in his current role as "Manager of Brand and Editorial." 
However, the Petitioner provided wage data of occupations that are not same as these positions. In 
particular, the Petitioner offered documentation relating to the salaries of "Reporters, Correspondents, 
and Broadcast News Analysts," "Journalists," "Editors," "Writers and Authors," and "Reporters and 
Correspondents." Although he likens his salaries to other occupations, the Petitioner did not show 
that he commands a high salary "in relation to others in the field," such as social media coordinators 
and branding and editorial managers. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos 
v. US. Dept. o_f Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding salary information 
for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the field); Grims on v. INS, 934 F. 
Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); 
Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player 
to salary of other NHL defensemen). Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate he earned a high salary 
compared to others in his field. 
Because the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this criterion, we withdraw the decision of the 
Director for this criterion. 
11 Id. 
18 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 11. 
9 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
The Petitioner argued eligirilitylfor this criterion based on comparable evidence through his claims of 
growing the circulation of the number pf..llnia.pe visitors to Variety Latino 's Y ouTube channel 
and website, and the number of followers on L___Js social media posts. For the reasons previously 
discussed above under the display criterion, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he qualifies for the 
submission of comparable evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 19 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his claims are "truly comparable" to the 
commercial successes criterion. 20 Here, the Petitioner did not establish how he was responsible for 
increased circulation or the number of site views and followers. For example, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that his specific work increased circulation or attracted a number of site visits and 
followers comparable to a level of "commercial successes" rather than taking credit for the total 
number of visits and followers. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion through the submission of 
comparable evidence. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our authority 
over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable 
to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding 
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-
2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
19 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
20 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
10 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance 
of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it is 
consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 
101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not 
otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, 
and he 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). Although the Petitioner has experience in 
journalism and media, the record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing that he is among 
the upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11