dismissed EB-1A Case: Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF O-M-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 8, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, variously identified as a journalist and "patron of the arts," seeks classification as an 
individual 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 the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that she meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. The Petitioner asserts that the Director applied too strict a standard of proof. 
More broadly, the Petitioner disputes case law relating to the adjudication of extraordinary ability 
petitions. 1 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
1 As an administrative appellate body, we have no authority to overrule or disregard binding judicial case law. In any 
event, the arguments disputing the case law appear to have been copied, without attribution , from an amicus curiae brief 
prepared by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) in support of an unrelated petition. (The brief raises 
several points that are not relevant to this proceeding, and the phrase "AILA reiterates its concern ... " appears on page 
I 6 of the Petitioner 's brief.) The AILA amicus brief is available online at https://www.uscis.gov /sites/default/files/ 
USCIS/ About%20Us /Directorates%20and%20Program%20Offices / AAO/Brief%20 I .PDF (last visited Sept. 25, 2019). 
In our appellate decision relating to that other petition , we considered and rebutted the arguments in the amicus brief. 
Because these arguments are not specific to the case now before us, we will not revisit our responses here. 
Matter of O-M-C-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. A petitioner can either demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award), or provide 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 qualifying awards, published 
material in certain media, and scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a 
petitioner to submit comparable material if they are 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. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that she "founded th to honor distinguished writers, 
poets and artists and ... would like to bring the to ... the United States." 
The Petitioner did not submit any evidence to show that the.__ _________ _.( also called 
thel I provided her with paid employment. Rather, the Petitioner has worked primarily 
as a journalist from 1987 to 2013, and "produced two shows on Broadway" in 2012 and 2014. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, the Petitioner 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 found that the Petitioner only 
fulfilled two of the initial evidentiary criteria, relating to judging the work of others and performing in 
2 
Matter of O-M-C-
a leading or critical role. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets two additional criteria, 
discussed below. 
We note that the Petitioner has submitted evidence relating to a variety of pursuits, such as journalism, 
stage production, and organizing awards ceremonies, without identifying a field encompassing these 
activities in which she seeks to establish her extraordinary ability. Accordingly, she has not 
demonstrated that all of the submitted evidence relates to the field in which classification is sought. 
Regardless, upon review, the record does not show that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at 
least three criteria. We begin by discussing the two criteria that the Director granted. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. We disagree. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role 
for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation." In general, a leading role is 
evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which the alien was responsible for the success 
or standing of the organization or establishment. The evidence of record does not establish that the 
Petitioner has met the requirements according to the plain language of this criterion. 
The Petitioner's initial evidence under this criterion, such as press passes, established her employment as 
a journalist witLJ an Italian public broadcasting company. The Petitioner did not document her role 
there in detail except to indicate that she was based inl I; her former colleagues attested that the 
Petitioner covered a range of stories and events in the United States. The role of a network journalist with 
a network is not automatically leading or critical; we note the Petitioner's assertion that "1600 journalist[ s] 
work atc=Jfull time." One colleague claimed that the Petitioner "organize[ d] ... the r ~ 
correspondent's office," but this individual is a newspaper reporter who did not establish direct 
knowledge of the events described. As discussed further below, the Petitioner cited salary figures relating 
to news anchors, but the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner was an anchor rather than a 
correspondent. 
The Petitioner later submitted letters from colleagues, indicating that she served as director of the 
I I School of Journalism in I I Italy. The letters contain apparent inconsistencies. One 
colleague indicated that the Petitioner became the director of the school after serving on juries to select 
students, whereas another colleague asserted that the Petitioner actually founded the school. The record 
contains no documentary evidence about the school (which the Petitioner did not mention at all in her 
initial submission) or the Petitioner's role there. 
Two of the writers stated that they work at the I I School of Journalism atl !University in 
I I but they did not state that ~ School and the I I School of Journalism are the same 
institution. The president of the~hool specifically used both names in his letter, naming the 
I I School in his own credentials and using the name 'l I Schoo\.-fil..1illpnalism" when 
discussing the Beneficiary's work. Another writer, identified as the manager of L_J Merchandising 
and Faculty Restaurant, stated "I work as a manager at th~niversity," and that "I also worked as 
the I lat the I I School of Journalism ... in the years 1992 to 1996." The record 
3 
Matter of O-M-C-
contains no documentary evidence from the ~I --~I School of Journalism to confirm or clarify the 
nature of the Beneficiary's employment there. 
Given the vague and inconsistent claims, coupled with a lack of verifiable, documentary evidence, we 
cannot conclude that the Petitioner has met her burden of proof with respect to 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 allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. We disagree, for the 
reasons outlined below. 
Initially, the Petitioner cited her co-creation of the I I under this criterion, but did not explain 
how this showed her participation as a judge of the work of others. The record is ambiguous as to whether 
the Petitioner has participated as one of the judges who choose award recipients. Furthermore, the awards 
go to "writers, poets and artists." The Petitioner did not claim to have worked in those fields, or explain 
how they are allied to her own field( s) of employment. 
In a supplemental submission, the Petitioner indicated that she had participated as a judge of the work of 
others in the field ofjoumalism. The Petitioner submitted three letters indicating that she served on a jury 
that selected students to attend the I !School ofJournalism. As noted above, the letters are vague 
and inconsistent, and the record contains no documentary evidence from the I I School of 
Journalism, an omission of particular concern when we consider that the Petitioner initially did not 
mention the school at all. 
The Petitioner also submitted a translated copy of an article from an unidentified publication, indicating 
that the Petitioner sat on a jury to decide the winner of an award for "articles, interventions or essays on 
the topic 'Constitutional reforms: rules to be retained."' The article indicates that "[t]he award ceremony 
was held on 3/24/97," but the dateline of the article is "May 1996." The mismatched dates also appear in 
the Italian-language original, from no identified source other than an email message from the Petitioner. 
The inconsistencies and deficiencies in the Petitioner's new evidence diminish their evidentiary weight. 
See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Because the Petitioner's evidence ofjudging 
consists solely of inconsistent letters and an article of unknown origin, we find that the Petitioner has not 
submitted enough evidence to meet its burden of proof with respect to this criterion. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not met the additional criteria discussed below. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification 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) 
4 
Matter of O-M-C-
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a 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, standardized test scores, grade point average, 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. 
The Petitioner cited the following as qualifying memberships: 
• A doctorate in Architecture from the University ofl I 
• An assistant professorship in the department of Architecture atc=]University 
• Listings in the Italian Register of Professional Architects and the Italian Register of Professional 
Journalists 
Most of the above information relates to architecture, but the record does not indicate that the Petitioner 
seeks classification in that field, or that she intends to work as an architect. Also, the Petitioner did not 
explain how a university degree and a faculty position constitute membership in associations, or establish 
the role that recognized national or international experts play in the degree-granting and hiring processes. 
Similarly, the Petitioner did not establish the requirements for listing in the two Italian Registers, or show 
that the listed individuals collectively comprise an association. 
The Petitioner submitted an unsigned letter, attributed to a former dean of the University o~ I, listing 
some of the Petitioner's past achievements and expressing the opinion that the Petitioner qualifies as an 
alien of extraordinary ability "base[ d] on her successful career and distinguished accomplishments." The 
Petitioner cited this letter as evidence of a qualifying membership, but the letter does not mention 
membership in any association. 
The Petitioner later stated that her former em lo erO has a distinguished reputation, and she asserted 
without evidence thatl I "offi'I""'--.........,,-----' is the most prestigious." The Petitioner did not submit 
any evidence that employment by amounts to membership in an association, or that it is contingent 
on outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts in the field of 
journalism. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that her involvement with the I I Foundation is, itself, a 
qualifying membership. The Petitioner, however, co-founded the Foundation. The Petitioner has not 
shown that her ability to do so required nationally or internationally recognized experts to judge her 
achievements as outstanding; she has not identified those achievements or the experts who judged them 
to be outstanding. 
The Petitioner also asserts that "there are professional associations with different levels of membership 
and higher levels of membership may satisfy this evidentiary criterion." This is a general statement, and 
the Petitioner has not shown that it relates to any of her claimed memberships. 
The Petitioner has not met the plain language of this criterion. 
5 
Matter of O-M-C-
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
The regulatory phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman 
v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 
F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The Petitioner contended that her role in co-creating the I ~ is an original artistic contribution 
of major significance in the field, and that the award is "the Italian equivalent of the Nobel Prize in 
Literature." 
The Petitioner submitted letters from, and background information about, several I lreci}ients. 
For example,! I former Poet Laureate of the United States, stated: "The I as an 
award and as an experience, is one of the two or three most significant forms of recognition I have 
received." I I cited "[t]he international nature of the prize, the elegance of the presentation, the 
generous reception inc=] [ and] the sculptural work of art that comes with the prize." These factors do 
not establish the significance of the prize itself. 
Another former Poet Laureate) I stated that the I k is "possibly Italy's most prestigious 
international literary honor," but did not elaborate on that assertion. 
The reputation of these writers is not in dispute in this proceeding, but their own acclaim does not establish 
the significance of th~ I It is significant that the Petitioner has been able to locate and submit 
high-quality, objective documentation about these award winners, but has not provided evidence of a 
similar caliber relatin to the or the Petitioner's creation thereof. The Petitioner has chosen 
to compare the ~---~to the Nobel Prize, but has not shown that the two prizes enjoy comparable 
prestige or receive comparable attention, for example in news coverage. The coverage documented in 
the record consists primarily of press releases from the winners' employers and publishers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits two letters from individuals who are involved with the Nobel Prize for 
Literature.~--------~ of the Uni
1
ersity o
1 I I stated that he is "in continuous 
contact with the jury of this Prize," and that "[t]he Academy in its work for choosing the laureates 
[ of] the Nobel Prize in Literature has taken account of the decisions of the I IF oundation," 
and that the Academy and the Foundation have been in "direct cooperation ... [since] 2014." The 
Petitioner did not describe the nature of this cooperation, submit documentation of any formal agreement, 
or show how many other organizations cooperate with the Academy in this way or how the Academy 
selects those organizations. 
I la member ofthel I Academy and Nobel Committee for Literature, stated: "The 
I , lhas an important place in contemporary culture. It has been awarded to several writers who 
were later to receive the literary Nobel Prize .... As a winner of thel I myself: I also have 
personal knowledge of this prize." 
6 
Matter of O-M-C-
The quoted letters demonstrate that some experts in the field are familiar with the I I But this 
familiarity does not establish that the Petitioner's contributions have been of major significance in the 
field. Recognition does not necessarily equate to major significance in the field. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not explained how the creation of the is an original 
contribution. The Petitioner identified no characteristic of the,__ ___ ___,that distinguishes them from 
other literary prizes and awards. The record does not rule out the originality of the I I but the 
burden is on the Petitioner to make that case and submit appropriate corroborating evidence. 
Beyond thel l Attorney! I initially identified as Italy's Honorary Consul for 
the State ofl I stated that the Petitioner's "contribution is a bridge to the Italian and American 
cultures," and that the Petitioner "has donated her time by actinJ as a liaison between my office and Italian 
Diplomats ... in the United States," primarily inl _. did not ex lain the larger 
significance of the Petitioner's efforts in this regard. In later correspondence,,__ ___ ~acknowledged 
that he had represented the Petitioner in a personal injury case. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field [ emphasis 
added]." Without additional, specific evidence showing that the Petitioner's work has been unusually 
influential, widely applied throughout her field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of 
major significance, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
There are two other criteria that the Petitioner previously claimed to meet, but does not defend on appeal. 
Therefore, these issues are abandoned. See Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th 
Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 
2011) (the court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). We 
will briefly note the Petitioner's claims under these two criteria. 
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) 
The Petitioner asserted that she meets this criterion because she produced two plays inl I one in 
2012 and the other in 2014. The Petitioner does not claim to have met any other regulatory c;riteria 
through her work as a theatrical producer, and the Petitioner has not explained how that work relates 
either to her career in journalism or to her endeavors relating to the I I 
The appellate brief discusses display, but only in the context of the "comparable evidence" clause at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), asserting for instance that "scholars and academics 'display' their work" at 
academic conferences. The Petitioner had not previously invoked the "comparable evidence" clause, 
and does not discuss the specifics of this case in discussing the issue. The Petitioner discusses the 
issue only in the context of disputing Kazarian and related case law. 
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) 
7 
Matter of O-M-C-
The Petitioner stated that the "average News Anchor Salary in New York" is "116,923 in 2018 dollars," 
and that her "[t]otal gross annual pay in 2000 was $146,530." The Petitioner contended: "In today's 
dollars, the value of the contract would be significantly higher." 
Supporting documents show that, while the average news anchor salary in New York was $116,923 in 
2018, the range of salaries was very broad. The 90th percentile was $427,116, meaning that one anchor 
in ten earned more than that amount. The quoted figure of $146,530, while above average, is not 
significantly high in relation to others in the field. 
A larger issue, however, is that the Petitioner did not accurately describe her own compensation. A 
translated letter fromc=J in Italy, from May 2000, specified the Petitioner's expected "[t]otal gross 
annual pay" not as US $146,530, but as 146,530,160 Italian lira. The same document states that, "[b]y 
converting into foreign currency," the Petitioner's "[y]early pay in US dollars" would be $59,140.70. The 
Petitioner did not show that this amount was significantly high for news anchors in New York in 2000. 
The Petitioner also did not submit any other documentary evidence relating to her compensation. 
The Petitioner does not revisit this issue on appeal, and we consider the claim to be abandoned. 
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.2 For the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofO-M-C-, ID# 5108163 (AAO Oct. 8, 2019) 
2 As the Petitioner has not established her extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act we need not 
address whether she is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" under section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii). 
However, we briefly note that record raises questions in this regard. The Petitioner stated that she "has been here on an E-2 
visa as a manager for several companies that have invested $26,000,000 ine:=Jandl land ... also owns commercial 
real estate inl lthat she manages." The Petitioner did not identify the companies or establish that they have any relation 
to the I !or her journalism career. The Petitioner also stated that she "was unable to sustain her remarkable 
contributions to the arts or journalism ... because of a serious accident" in 2015. The attorney who represented her after the 
accident stated that the Petitioner "strives every day to get back to her work as a journalist, producer and entrepreneur." This 
language indicates that it is still uncertain that the Petitioner will be able to resume her past work. 
8