dismissed EB-1A Case: Magician

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
pccon
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
Officeof AdministrativeAppealsMS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE: Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER Date: OCT 0 4 2010
IN RE: Petitionr
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(l)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If youbelievethelaw wasinappropriatelyappliedby usin reachingourdecision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideror amotionto reopen.
Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbefoundat 8C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto theoffice thatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor
Motion. Thefeefor a FormI-290Bis currently$585,butwill increaseto $630onNovember23,2010.
Any appealor motionfiled on or afterNovember23,2010mustbefiled with the$630fee. Pleasebe
awarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbefiled within30daysof thedecision
thatthe motionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscas.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Theemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,Texas
ServiceCenter,on August 13, 2009,and is now beforethe AdministrativeAppealsOffice on
appeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alienof extraordinaryability asa magician.Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerhadnot
establishedthe requisiteextraordinaryability andfailed to submitextensivedocumentationof his
sustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthe
statutethatthe petitionerdemonstrate"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of his or herachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act
and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)statesthatan
alien canestablishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-time
achievement,specificallya major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof such
anaward,the regulationoutlinesten categoriesof specificevidence.8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i)
through(x). The petitionermust submit qualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten
regulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establishthebasiceligibility requirements.
On appeal,counselclaimsthat the petitionermeetsat leastthreeof the regulatorycriteriaat 8
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In addition,counselarguesthat the directorfailed to apply the proper
standardof proof, a preponderanceof the evidence,pursuantto Matter of Chawathe,USCIS
AdoptedDecision,January11,2006.
l. Law
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified
immigrantswho are aliensdescribedin any of the following subparagraphs(A)
through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.- An alienis describedin this
subparagraphif --
(i) thealienhasextraordinaryability in the sciences,
arts,education,business,or athleticswhichhasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednationalor international
acclaim and whose achievementshave been
recognized in the field through extensive
documentation,
(ii) the alien seeksto enter the United Statesto
continueworkintheareaof extraordinaryability,and
Page3
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill
substantiallybenefitprospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalization
Service(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta veryhigh standardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723101"Cong.,2d
Sess.59(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"
refersonly to thoseindividualsin that smallpercentagewho haverisento the very top of the
fieldof endeavor.Id and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratehisor hersustained
acclaimand the recognitionof his or her achievementsin the field. Suchacclaimmust be
establishedeither throughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(that is, a major, intemational
recognizedaward)or throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the
followingtencategoriesof evidence.
(i) Documentationof the alien's receiptof lessernationallyor internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefieldof endeavor;
(ii) Documentationof thealien'smembershipin associationsin thefield for which
classificationis sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof theirmembers,
asjudged by recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor
fields;
(iii) Publishedmaterialaboutthealienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor
othermajormedia,relatingto thealien'sworkin thefieldfor whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshallincludethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,and
anynecessarytranslation;
(iv) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation.eitherindividuallyor onapanel,asajudge
of the work of othersin the sameor an allied field of specializationfor which
classificationis sought;
(v) Evidenceof thealien'soriginalscientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield;
(vi) Evidenceof the alien's authorshipof scholarlyarticles in the field, in
professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia:
(vii) Evidenceof thedisplayof thealien'sworkin thefieldatartisticexhibitionsor
showcases;
(viii) Evidencethat the alien has performedin a leadingor critical role for
organizationsor establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation;
Page4
(ix) Evidencethatthealienhascommandedahighsalaryor othersignificantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationtoothersin thefield;or
(x) Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,asshownbyboxoffice
receiptsor record,cassette,compactdisk,orvideosales.
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof a
petitionfiledunderthisclassification.Kazarianv.USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).Although
the court upheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meetagivenevidentiarycriterion.' Withrespectto thecriteria
at 8 C.F.R.§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), the courtconcludedthat while USCISmay haveraised
legitimateconcernsaboutthe significanceof the evidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,
thoseconcernsshouldhavebeenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id.
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO'sevaluationrestedon animproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthe typesof evidenceprovided(which the AAO did)," andif the
petitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionisthattheapplicanthasfailed
to satisfythe regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at
1122(citingto 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).Thecourtalsoexplainedthe"final meritsdetermination"as
thecorollaryto this procedure:
If a petitionerhassubmittedtherequisiteevidence,USCISdetermineswhetherthe
evidencedemonstratesbotha"levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis one
of thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof the[ir] fieldof endeavor."
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2),and"that the alienhassustainednationalor international
acclaimand that his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of
expertise."8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Only alienswhoseachievementshavegarnered
"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"are eligible for an "extraordinary
ability"visa.8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
/d.at 1119.
Thus, Kazarian setsforth a two-part approachwherethe evidenceis first countedand then
consideredin thecontextof afinal meritsdetermination.In reviewingServiceCenterdecisions,the
AAO will applythetestsetforth in Kazarian. As theAAO maintainsdenovoreview,theAAO
will conductanewanalysisif thedirectorreachedhisor herconclusionbyusingaone-stepanalysis
ratherthanthetwo-stepanalysisdictatedby theKazariancourt. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v.
UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),affd, 345F.3d683(9* Cir. 2003);
seealso Soltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts
appellatereviewonadenovobasis).
Specifically,the court statedthatthe AAO hadunilaterallyimposednovel,substantive,or evidentiaryrequirements
beyondthosesetforth in theregulationsat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page5
IL Analysis
A. EvidentiaryCriteria
This petition, filed on August 29, 2008, seeksto classify the petitioner as an alien with
extraordinaryability as a magician. The petitionerhas submittedevidencepertainingto the
following criteriaunder8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).2
Documentationof the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
At the time of the original filing of the petition,counselclaimedthe petitioner'seligibility for
thiscriterionby stating:
In Marchof 2008,[thepetitioner]competedamongstthemostwell-knownLatin
AmericanMagiciansin theworld ata Latin-AmericanMagicCompetitionheldin
BuenosAires,Argentin!
In [the petitioner] competedamongstother renown internationaland
nationalMagicianswithin the U.S.at a FloridaStateMagic Competitionby the
nameof ' whereheplaced
r of beingnamedth
In supportof counsel'sclaims,shesubmittedthefollowingdocumentation:
1. A photographof the petitionerholdinga trophy with a captionclaiming
"Winner of the
2. A photographof atrophy;
3. A photographof the petitionerholdinga trophywith a captionclaiming
4. A photographof atrophy;and
5.
OnApril 24,2009,thedirectorissuedarequestfor additionalevidencepursuantto theregulation
at 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(8).Specifically,thedirectorrequestedevidenceestablishingthenational
2Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimto meetor submitevidencerelatingto thecriterianotdiscussedin thisdecision.
Page6
or internationalrecognitionof thepetitioner'sawardsandto "submitevidencein supportof [the
etitioner's onse." In re onse,re ardin counselsubmitteda documententitled,
However,a reviewof thedocumentreflects
that it appearsto be a self-compileddocumentfrom counsel. Counselfailed to identify the
origin of thedocumentand/orsourceof theinformationcontainedtherein. Withoutdocumentary
evidenceto supporttheclaim,theassertionsof counselwill not satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof
proof. Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence.Matterof Obaigbena,
19I&N Dec.533,534n.2(BIA 1988);Matterof Laureano,19I&N Dec.1,3 n.2(BIA 1983);
Matterof Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
Regarding Magic on the Beach, counsel submitted a documententitled,
, whichalsoappearsto bea self-compileddocumentfromcounsel.However,
areviewof thedocumentreflectsthatcounselindicatedthat"[m]ore informationcanbefoundat
thewebsite: A furtherreviewof thiswebsite
reflects that some of the information from the websitewas piecedtogetherto createthe
document. Nonetheless,we find that the letter, as indicatedin item 5 above,is sufficientto
establishthepetitioner's
At this point,we mustaddressthe evidentiaryweightof counsel'sself-compileddocumentsand
thepetitioner'sburdenof proof. Wearenotpersuadedthatthesubmissionof documentsthatare
createdby counselfrom information from websitesor other sourcesand then portrayedas
official documentationcan be consideredhaving evidentiary weight in this proceeding.
Furthermore,in visa petition proceedings,the burdenis on the petitionerto establisheligibility
for the benefitsought. SeeMatter of Brantigan,11I&N Dec.493 (BIA 1966);section291of
theAct; 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. We alsoarenotpersuadedthatprovidinga websiteandexpectingthe
director to verify the information by navigatingthroughnumerouslinks within the website
satisfiesthepetitioner'sburdenof proof. Insteadof piecingtogetherinformationfrom a website
and providing a website address,counsel should have simply submitted screenshotsof the
website. While we find it within our discretionto verify anyevidencein supportof thepetition,
it is notourburdento searchfor evidenceonbehalfof thepetitioner.
Moreover,the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)alsorequiresthat the petitionerreceive
"lesser nationally or internationallyrecognizedprizes or awardsfor excellence[emphasis
added]." Evenif wewould acceptcounsel'sself-compileddocumentation,whichwedo not,the
documentsdo not reflectthatthe etitioner'sawardsarenationallyor internationallyrecognized
for excellence. Regarding while the documentclaims that it is "one of the highest
honors" and "it is considereda very prestigiousmagic award," the petitioner failed to support
theseassertionswith any inde endent,objectivedocumentaryevidence. Merely submittinga
documentthat claimsthe is a high honoror prestigiousis insufficientto establishthat a
receiptof a isa nationallyor internationallyrecognizedawardfor excellence.Similarly,
the documentfor claimsthat "[t]his is price [sic] is consideredthe most
importantin all Florida State." Even if we would acceptthis document,the documentonly
reflectstheaward'srecognitionwithin Floridaandnot asa recognizednationalaward.
Page7
Wenoteherethata reviewof therecordof proceedingfails to reflectanydocumentaryevidence
of counsel'sclaim at the time of initial filing of the petitioner"being namedthe
nor wasthereany documentaryevidence
submitteddemonstratingthenationalor internationalrecognitionfor excellencefor this claimed
awardor prize. We alsonotethat in responseto the director'srequestfor evidence,counsel
claimedthe petitioner'seligibility basedon his receiptof an awardfrom the Latin American
Federationof Societyof Magicians(FLASOMA) in February2009. However,thepetitionwas
filed on August29, 2008. Thisclaimedawardoccurredafterthefiling of thepetition. Eligibility
mustbeestablishedatthetime of filing. Therefore,wewill not considertheseitemsasevidence
to establishthepetitioner'seligibility. 8 C.F.R.§§103.2(b)(1),(12);Matterof Katigbak,14
I&N Dec.45, 49 (Regl.Commr.1971).A petitioncannotbeapprovedat a futuredateafterthe
petitionerbecomeseligible undera newsetof facts. Matterof Izummi,22 I&N Dec. 169,175
(Comm'r. 1998). Thatdecisionfurtherprovides,citing Matterof Bardouille,18I&N Dec.114
(BIA 1981),thatwe cannot"considerfactsthatcomeinto beingonly subsequentto thefiling of
apetition." Id at 176.Notwithstanding,wemustnotethatasevidenceof thepetitioner'sreceipt
of this award,counselsubmitteda pictureof a trophy andan apparentself-createddocument
regardingthe natureof the award. The documentaryevidencesubmittedfor FLASOMA is
insufficientto establishthatthepetitionerreceivedthis awardandthattheawardis nationallyor
internationallyrecognizedfor excellence.
Onappeal,counselarguesthatthedirectorerredin statingthat"[t]he awardsandprizesmustbe
internationally or nationally recognizedby all in the entertainmentindustry" and "[t]he
competitionmusthavebeenamongthoseindividualsthathavedemonstratedsustainednational
or internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementsarewidely knownthroughoutthe field." We
agreewith counselthat the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)doesnot requirethat the
petitioner'sawardsberecognizedby "all in theentertainmentindustry,"insteadthepetitioner's
awardsmustbenationallyor internationallyrecognizedfor excellence.
Regardless,for the reasonsstatedabove,the petitioner falls far short of establishingby a
preponderanceof the evidencethat he meetsthe plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). Specifically, the submitteddocumentaryevidencefails to establishthat he
receivedanyof theclaimedawards,andthoseawardsarerecognizednationallyor intemationally
for excellencein hisfield.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for which
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievementsof their
members,as judged by recognizednational or international expertsin their
disciplinesorfields.
At thetimeof theoriginalfilingofthepetition,thepetitionerclaimedeligibilityforthiscriterion
basedon his membershipwith the InternationalBrotherhoodof Magicians(IBM) and the
Societyof AmericanMagicians(SAM). Thepetitionersubmittedthefollowingdocumentation:
Page8
1. A certificatefrom IBM indicatingthatthepetitionerwaselecteda member
of IBM in December2005;
2. A recommendationletter from of
IBM;
3. Screenshotsfrom the websitewww.maaician.oruregardingthe general
backgroundof IBM;
4. A certificateof SAM indicatingthatthepetitionerwaselecteda member
of SAMonApril 25,2006;
5. A recommendationletterfror
of SAM; and
6. Screenshotsfrom the websitewww.magicsam.comregardingthe general
background,purpose,andmissionof SAM.
Theplain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii)requires"[d]ocumentationof
the alien's membershipin associationsin the field for which is classificationis sought,which
require outstanding achievementsof their members, as judged by recognized national or
internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor fields." In orderto demonstratethat membershipin
an associationmeets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the associationrequires
outstandingachievementasan essentialconditionfor admissionto membership.Membership
requirementsbasedon employmentor activity in a given field, minimum educationor
experience,standardizedtest scores,gradepoint average,recommendationsby colleaguesor
currentmembers,or paymentof duesdo not satisfythis criterionas suchrequirementsdo not
constituteoutstandingachievements.Further,the overallprestigeof a given associationis not
determinative;the issuehereis membershiprequirementsratherthanthe association'soverall
reputation.
In this case,the documentaryevidencesubmittedby the petitionerestablishesthat he is a
member of IBM and SAM. However, the documentaryevidence fails to demonstratethat
membershipwith IBM andSAM requiresoutstandingachievementsof its members,asjudged
by recognizednationalor internationalexperts.
RegardingIBM, thepetitionersubmitteda letterfrom whostated:
For a youngman, [the petitioner]hasextraordinaryability and displaysa high
level of expertisein the art of magic. He is consideredto be one of the top
magiciansfrom SouthAmerica. In April 25 of 2006,hejoined The Societyof
AmericanMagicians,the oldestandmostprestigiousmagicsocietyin the world
which wasstartedin 1902in New York City andwhosemostnotablePresident,
HarryHoudini,servedfor 9 years.
While is the of IBM, he discussedthe petitioner's
membershipwith SAMandnotIBM. In fact,besidesidentifyinghimselfasholdingthe
failedto provideanyinformationregardingIBM, let alone
informationindicatingthat membershipwith IBM requiresoutstandingachievementsof its
Page9
membersasjudgedby nationalor internationalexperts.Furthermore,whilethescreenshotsfrom
www.maaician.ore indicate that IBM has "13,000 membersworldwide with over 300 local
groupsin morethan73 countries"andannounceconventionsandawardsof members,theyfail
to indicateanyof themembershiprequirementsof IBM.
RegardingSAM, the letter from datedJanuary2, 2006,prior to the petitioner's
membership,statedalmostverbatimto Mr. Silver'sletter:
Although[thepetitioner]is only 26 yearsold heshowsextraordinaryability and
level of expertisein theart of magic. He is nowconsideredasoneof the top 10
magiciansfrom SouthAmerica. He hasstartedhis membershipprocessto join
theSocietyof AmericanMagicians,theoldestandmostprestigiousmagicsociety
in theworld whichwasstartedin 1902in New York City andwhosemostnotable
Presidentservedfor 9 yearsuntil hisdeath,HarryHoudini.
While praisedtheaccomplishmentsof thepetitioner,shefailedto indicateanyof the
membershiprequirementsof SAM, so as to establishthat membershipwith SAM requires
outstandingachievementsof its membersasjudged by recognizednational or international
experts. Likewise,while the screenshotsfrom www.mauiesam.comprovidesomebackground
informationabouttheorganization,theydo not reflectanyof themembershiprequirementsfor
SAM.
Onappeal,counselclaims:
As documentedwithin Exhibit "2" of the I-140 Package,the Petitioneris a
memberof two of themostwell-respectedprofessionalassociationsfor Magicians
in the world: [[BM] and [SAM]. Althoughtheseorganizationsmay haveopen
membershipto all magicians.by submittinglettersof recommendationwritten by
officers within theseorganizationswhich documenthis many achievements,the
Petitionerhasproventhat HE is a memberwho hasaccomplishedoutstanding
achievementswithin his field of expertise. Thereforewhere there are no
organizationswhich do requireoutstandingachievementsof their members,then
comparableevidence as to the history and prestigious reputation of the
organizationsof which the Petitioneris a membershouldbe consideredalong
with thePetitioner'soutstandingachievementsasa memberof saidorganization.
We are not persuadedby counsel's argumentson appeal. First, counsel concedesthat
membershipwith IBM andSAM do not requireoutstandingachievementsof its members,and
therefore,donotmeettheplainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ii).Second,
the recommendationletters submittedby and do not reflect that the
petitioner"hasaccomplishedoutstandingachievementswithin hisfield of expertise."Instead,as
previouslystatedabove,therecommendationlettersmerelydescribegeneralaccomplishmentsof
the petitionerandfall far shortof demonstratingoutstandingachievements.Finally, counsel's
argumentthat the petitioner's membershipwith IBM and SAM should be consideredas
comparableevidencebecausetherearenoorganizationsin his field is unconvincing.Counsel
Page10
failed to submit any documentaryevidence supportingher assertionsthat there are no
organizationsin the petitioner'sfield that requiresoutstandingachievementsof its members.
Withoutdocumentaryevidenceto supporttheclaim,theassertionsof counselwill not satisfythe
petitioner'sburdenof proof. Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence.
Matterof0haighena..19I&N Dec.at534n.2;Matterof Laureano,19I&N Dec.at3 n.2;Matter
of Ramirez-Sanchez,17l&N Dec.at506.
The ten categoriesin the regulationsaredesignedto coverdifferent areas;not everycriterion
will applyto everyoccupation.Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(4)provides"[i]f theabove
standardsdo not readily apply to the [petitioner's] occupation,the petitionermay submit
comparableevidenceto establishthe[petitioner's]eligibility." It is clearfromtheuseof theword
"shall" in 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)thattherule,nottheexception.is thatthepetitionermustsubmit
evidenceto meetat leastthreeof theregulatorycriteria. Thus,it is thepetitioner'sburdento explain
why the regulatorycriteria are not readilyapplicableto his occupationandhow the evidence
submittedis "comparable"to the objectiveevidencerequiredat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).In
thiscase,aninabilityto meetacriterion,however,isnotnecessarilyevidencethatthecriteriondoes
not applyto thepetitioner'soccupation.Theregulatorylanguageprecludestheconsiderationof
comparableevidencein this case.,asthereis no indicationthateligibility for visapreferencein
the petitioner'soccupationasa magiciancannotbeestablishedby the ten criteriaspecifiedby
the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3). Wherean alien is simply unableto meetor submit
documentaryevidenceof a single criterion,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submissionof comparableevidence. In addition,
membershipin a non-exclusiveassociationis not "comparable"to membershipin an exclusive
associationsimplyby securingarecommendationletter.
Forthereasonsstatedabove,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathismembershipwith IBM and
SAM demonstrateeligibility for this regulatorycriterion. Merely submittingdocumentation
reflecting membershipm orgamzationsin the petitioner's field, without documentaryevidence
establishingthat thoseorganizationsrequireoutstandingachievementsof their membersas
judgedby recognizednationalor internationalexperts,is insufficientto meetthe plain language
of theregulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Publishedmaterial about the alien in professionalor major tradepublications or
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which
classification is sought. Suchevidenceshall include the title, date,and author of
thematerial, andany necessarytranslation.
Onappeal,counselargues:
TheunderlyingDenialerroneouslystatesthat"thearticlesmustdiscussthemerits
of thebeneficiary'swork, thebeneficiary'sstandingin thefield, or anysignificant
impactthathisworkhadorhasonthefield." Thereisnosuchrequirementwith 8
Page11
CFR § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Requiringevidencethat is not listed within a specific
sectionof the Codeof FederalRegulationsgoesbeyondthe scopeof the given
sectionandalsogoesoutsidetheperimetersof thePetitioner'sBurdenof Proof.
* * *
Within the underlying I-140, the Petitioner submitted SUBSTANTIAL
documentationrelatingto themanypublishedmaterialsabouthim in professional
and/ormajormediawhich consistedof articlesabouthim andhismagicfeatured
in newspapersand magazinesaroundthe world. The record consistsof over 60
articles published within the past decadein some of the most important
newspapersandmagazineswithin theU.S.andLatinAmerica.
Whilethedirectormayhaveoverreachedin hisdecisionrequiringthatthepetitioner'sarticlesto
reflect his standingor impact in the field, the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requires"[p]ublishedmaterialaboutthe alien in professionalor major trade
publications or other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which
classificationis sought." In otherwords,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requires
thatthepublishedmaterialbe"about"thepetitionerrelatingto his work. In generalin orderfor
publishedmaterialto meetthis criterion,it mustbeprimarilyaboutthepetitionerand.asstatedin
the regulations,be printedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia. To
qualifyasmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor internationaldistribution.
Somenewspapers,suchastheNew York Times,nominallyservea particularlocalitybut would
qualify asmajormediabecauseof significantnationaldistribution,unlikesmalllocalcommunity
papers.3 In determiningthe petitioner's eligibility for this criterion, we will evaluatethe
petitioner'sdocumentsto determineif theyarepublishedmaterialabouthim relatingto hiswork
in professionalor major tradepublicationsor othermajor media.
Wenoteherethatalthoughcounselclaimsthattherecordconsistsof over60articles,therecord,
in fact, reflects56,which arelisted below:
1. An uncertified summarytranslationof an advertisingposter entitled,
"INKA Magic2008,"unidentifieddate,unidentifiedauthor,unidentified
source;
2. An uncertified summarytranslationof an advertisingposter entitled,
"Magic Fest 2008," unidentifieddate,unidentifiedauthor,unidentified
source;
3. An uncertified summarytranslationof an advertisingposter entitled,
"INKA Magic 2007," July 2, 2007, unidentified author, unidentified
source;
Evenwith nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmustbegivento the placementof the article. For
example,anarticlethatappearsin the WashingtonPost,butin a sectionthatis distributedonly in FairfaxCounty,
Virginia,for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividual'sreputationoutsideofthat county.
Page12
4. An uncertified summarytranslationof a crosswordpuzzleentitled,
unidentifiedauthor,Peru21;
5. A summarytranslationof a crosswordpuzzleentitled,
unidentified author,Ojo;
6. An uncertifiedsummarytranslationof anadvertisemententitled,
' unidentifiedauthor,
7. A partialtranslationof anarticleentitled,
unidentifiedauthor,
8. A 3artially translated article entitled,
9. A pictureof thepetitionerin thearticleentitled,
16- 29,2006,unidentifiedauthor,
10. A picture of the petitioner in the article entitled,
unidentifieddate,unidentifiedauthor,
11. A pictureof the petitionerin the articleentitled,
August3,2003,unidentifiedauthor,
12. An advertisingflyer entitled,"Animagic," unidentifieddate,unidentified
author,unidentifiedsource;
13. An advertising flyer entitled, 'The Magician',"
unidentifieddate,unidentifiedauthor,unidentifiedsource;
14. An advertising flyer entitled, The Magician,"
unidentifieddate,unidentifiedauthor,unidentifiedsource;
15. An advertisemententitled,
November5,2003,unidentifiedauthor,
16. An advertisemententitled,
November 5, 2004, unidentified author,
17. An advertisemententitled, November7,
2004,unidentifiedauthor,
18. nidedy sdamente May7,2004,
19. An advertisemententitled,'
May4, 2004,unidentifiedauthor,
20. An advertisemententitled, January 23, 2004,
unidentified author
21. nideadwrtisauho , January30, 2004,
22. An advertisemententitled,
November28,2003,unidentifiedauthor.
23. An advertisemententitled, July 4, 2003,unidentifiedauthor,
24. Anidenif ertisaeuhort May 30, 2003,
Page13
25. An advertisemententitled, January31,2003,unidentifiedauthor,
26. An advertisemententitled, January 30, 2003,
unidentifiedauthor
27. An advertisemententitled. Junel 1,
2001,unidentifiedauthor
28. nide tißrteida thot e May 3, 2001,
29. An advertisemententitled, September18,
2001,unidentifiedauthor,
30. An advertisemententitled May 2,
2001,unidentifiedauthor,
31. An advertisemententitled April 30, 2001,
unidentifiedauthor,
32. An advertisemententitled, April 19, 2001,
unidentifiedauthor,
33. An advertisemententitled,
June2004,unidentifiedauthor
34. An advertisemententitled,
35. May 6,2000,unidentified
author,
36. A snippetentitled February14, 2000,
unidentifiedauthor,
37. A snippetentitled, February9,
2000,unidentifiedauthor,
38.
39. An article entitled, October8, 2007,
unidentifiedauthor,
40. An article entitled,
41. enit eld
' July 20, 2008, unidentified
author
42. An articleentitled,
June 5, 2007, unidentified author, and
43. An article entitled, unidentifiedauthor,November 15, 2003,
44. An article entitled, July 10, 2003, unidentifiedauthor,
Page14
45. A snippetentitled, July6,2003,unidentifiedauthor,
46. An advertisemententitled, April 27, 2003,
unidentifiedauthor
47. An advertisement entitled, May 10, 2001,
unidentifiedauthor,
48. An articleentitled, April
22,2001,unidentifiedauthor,
49. An article entitled, December 2001,
unidentifiedauthor,
50. ut September17, 2000,unidentified
51. An articleentitled, September8,
2000,unidentifiedauthor,
52. n dent dntitled, August18 2000,
53. August17- 23,2006
54. An article entitled,
in Lima,January18,2002
55. rti eecentled,
56. 7, 91e ' June
Regardingitems1- 8,theplainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3)requiresthat
"[a]ny documentcontainingforeignlanguagesubmittedto USCISshallbeaccompaniedby afull
Englishlanguagetranslationwhich thetranslatorhascertifiedascompleteandaccurate,andby
thetranslator'scertificationthatheor sheiscompetentto translatefromtheforeignlanguageinto
English." In addition,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthat suchevidence
include "any necessarytranslation." The petitioner failed to submit certified and/or full
translationsfor the documents. Becausethe petitioner failed to comply with 8 C.F.R.
§§ 103.2(b)(3)and204.5(h)(3)(iii),theAAO cannotdeterminewhethertheevidencesupports
the petitioner'sclaims. Accordingly,theevidenceis not probativeandwill not beaccordedany
weight in this proceeding.
We acknowledgethat a review of items 34, 39, 42, 48, and 51 - 52 reflects that they contain
publishedmaterialaboutthepetitionerrelatingto his work. However,theplain languageof the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)alsoprovidesthat"[s]uchevidenceshallincludethetitle,
date,andauthorof the material,andany necessarytranslation." Regardingitems 1 - 52, the
petitionerfailed to includethe dateand/orauthorof thematerial. We simplycannotignorethe
regulatory requirementsand will not accord any weight to this evidenceto establishthe
petitioner'seligibilityfor thiscriterion.
Page15
Furthermore,as the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requires
"[p]ublishedmaterialaboutthe alienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajor
media,relatingto thealien'swork in thefield for whichclassificationis sought,"thepetitioner's
submissionof advertisementsof his performancesor classesin theform of postersandflyers,as
well asphotographsof the petitioneraccompanyingarticles,the appearancesof the petitioner's
namein crosswordpuzzles,andsnippetsmentioningthepetitionerarenot sufficientto establish
eligibility for thiscriterion.
Regardingitem53,areviewof thearticle,whichwasonly a partialsubmission,reflectsthatit is
aboutan individual named and not aboutthe petitioner. While the petitionerprovided
somecommentaryon performance,the articleis not aboutthe petitionerrelatingto his
work.
Regardingitems54and55,thearticlesarenot aboutthepetitionerrelatingto hiswork. Instead,
the articlesareaboutchildrenlearningmagicat the While the articlescredit
the petitioner as being the director and principal teacherof the and the
petitionerprovidedquoteson behalfof the students,it remainsthatthesearticlesarenot about
thepetitionerrelatingto hiswork.
Regardingitem 56, a reviewof the articlefails to reflectthatit is primarily aboutthe petitioner
relating to his work. Instead,the article generallydiscussesthe influenceof magic in the
present-dayculture. While the petitioneris quotedin the article,the article falls far shortof
beingaboutthepetitionerrelatingto hiswork.
Notwithstandingthe above, this regulatory requires that the material be published "in
professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia." However,regardingitems1- 3
and 12- 14,thereis no evidencedemonstratingthatthesedocumentswereeverpublished,let
alonepublishedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia. Regardingthe
remainingitems,thepetitionerfailedto submitanydocumentaryevidencedemonstratingthatthe
petitioner'smaterialwas publishedin professionalor major tradepublicationor other major
mediaprior to filing theappeal.
On appeal,counselsubmitteda self-compileddocument,which claimsto providebackground
information
Counselfailed to identify the origin of the document
and/orsourceof the informationcontainedtherein. Without documentaryevidenceto support
the claims, the assertionsof counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The
unsupportedassertionsof counseldonotconstituteevidence.Matterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.
at 534n.2;Matterof Laureano,19I&N Dec.at 3 n.2;MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.
at 506. We note that counselalso indicatesthat "more informationcanbe found" at various
websites. However,when someof thesewebsiteswere accessed,they were in the Spanish
Page16
language.4Without certified translationsof thesewebsites,we cannot confirm that theclaimsof
counselare true. Moreover,evenif the informationfrom counsel'sself-compileddocument
were derivedfrom thesemedia's websites,we simplycannotrely on informationalonefrom
publicationsthemselveswhosepurposesareto promoteandmarketthemselvesin orderto increase
distribution.SeeBragav. Poulos,No.CV 065105SJO(C.D.CA July6, 2007)aff'd 2009WL
604888(9'"Cir. 2009). Whiletheinformationmayprovideadescriptionof itsreadersandrefersto
its circulationstatistics,therecordcontainsno independentevidenceto demonstratewhethersuch
circulationamountsto majormedia.
We alsonotethatthe petitionerfailedto submitanydocumentaryevidenceregardingthe Miami
New Times,Universal News,La Razon..Elece,andSol De Oro so to demonstratethat they are
professionalor major tradepublicationsor other major media. In addition, while the petitioner
submittedarticles appearingon the websitesof media outlets, such as www.rnp.comand
www.abn.info.ve,we are not persuadedthat articlespostedon the Internetfrom a printed
publication are automatically consideredmajor media. The petitioner failed to submit
independent,supportingevidenceestablishingthatthe websitesareconsideredmajormedia. In
today'sworld, manynewspapers,regardlessof sizeanddistribution,postat leastsomeof their
storieson the Internet. To ignorethis realitywouldbeto renderthe"majormedia"requirement
meaningless. However,we are not persuadedthat internationalaccessibilityby itself is a
realisticindicatorof whethera givenwebsiteis "majormedia."
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor onapanel,asajudgeof
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specificationfor which
classificationis sought.
The directordeterminedthat the documentationsubmittedby the petitionerfailed to establish
eligibility for this criterion. The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)
requires"[e]videnceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor ona panel,asajudgeof the
workof othersin thesameor analliedfieldof specificationfor whichclassificationis sought."The
petitionersubmittedsufficientdocumentationdemonstratingthathemeetstheplain languageof
thecriterion. As such.we withdraw the findings of thedirectorfor this criterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerestablishedthathemeetstheplainlanguagefor thiscriterion.
Evidenceof the alien's original scientific,scholarly,artistic, or business-related
contributionsof a majorsignificancein thefield
At the time of the original filing of the petition,counselclaimedthe petitioner'seligibility for
this criterionby stating:
4 Forexample,see . Accessedon August3, 2010,andincorporatedintotherecordof
proceeding.
Page17
[The petitioner]hasalreadyofferedmoreoriginal contributionsto the world of
Magic than mostpeoplewill ever give back to their field of endeavor. He is
constantlyseekinganewwayto inspirein othersa lovefor Magic.
Oneoriginal contributionthat [the petitioner]hasbeenworking on for the past
decadeis to formalizethe educationandtraining of Magiciansthroughoutthe
world.
* * *
Another original contribution that [the petitioner] has made within his field of
expertiseis his useof magicasa motivationaltool within the corporateworld.
Within the past five years,more than nine big corporationshave utilized his
programwith a great deal of success. Someof those companiesare: LAN
Airlines, TELMEX Del Peru, IBM, BelCorp, Bellsouth Peru, Merck Lab.,
Admiral Casinos.RocheLab..andMercedesBenz.Peru.
Onappeal,counselargues:
The underlyingDenialgoeson to erroneouslystate"In orderto qualify for the
classification sought, however, the petitioner must demonstrate that the
beneficiaryis recognizednot only by his direct acquaintances,but alsoamong
othersin the entertainmentfield throughthe internationalcommunity." This
supposedrequirementis found nowherewithin 8 CFR § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Yet
againthis basisof the Denialis outsidethe scopeof 8 CFR § 204.5(h)(3)(v)and
goesbeyondthePetitioner'sburdenof proof.
A reviewof thedecisionof thedirectorstates:
Thebeneficiarysubmittedseveraltestimonials[sic] letterswhichindicatethatthe
beneficiaryhasmadesignificantoriginal contributionsto this field of endeavor.
The petitioner submittedwitnesslettersfrom individuals who all havedirect ties
to the beneficiary. In orderto qualify for the classificationsought,however,the
petitionermustdemonstratethatthebeneficiaryis recognizedno [sic] only by his
directacquaintances,but alsoamongothersin theentertainmentfield throughthe
internationalcommunity.
However,a reviewof the recordof proceedingfails to reflectthatthe petitionersubmittedany
testimonialor witnessletters.In fact,therecordreflects,asspecificallyindicatedbycounselat
the time of the original filing of the petition and in responseto the director's requestfor
additionalevidence,whatappearsto beself-compileddocumentationfrom counselregardingthe
petitioner'sSchoolof Magic,magiccamps,andmotivationalseminarsto corporations.As stated
previously,counselfailedto identifytheorigin of thedocumentand/orsourceof theinformation
Page18
containedtherein. Without documentaryevidenceto supportthe claims, the assertionsof
counselwill not satisfythe petitioner'sburdenof proof. Theunsupportedassertionsof counsel
do not constituteevidence.Matter of Obaigbena,19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano,
19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez,17 I&N Dec. at 506. We simply cannot
acceptdocumentationcreatedby counsel,without any supportingobjectivedocumentation,as
evidenceof the petitioner'soriginal contributionsof major significance. We notethatcounsel
alsosubmittedphotographsof the petitioneranddocumentsin a foreignlanguagewithout any
translations,let alonecertifiedtranslations.
Notwithstandingthe above,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)
requires"[e]videnceof the alien's original scientific,scholarly,artistic, athletic,or business-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield." Whilethedocumentationclaimsthatthe
petitioner"foundedthe first andunique "implementedfor the first time his
original ' and
createda motivational"program magic to communicate,"this regulatorycriterion not only
requiresthepetitionerto makeoriginalcontributions,theregulatorycriterionalsorequiresthose
contributionsto be of major significance. While counselargueson appealthat the director's
reasoningthat "the petitionermust demonstratethat [he] is recognizednot only by his direct
acquaintances,but also among others in the entertainmentfield through the international
community" is not found in the regulation,we concurwith the director's reasoningin this
portionof thedecisionfor this criterion. Simplysubmittingevidenceof thepetitioner'soriginal
contributionswithout evidencedemonstratingthat the petitioner's work has beenof major
significanceto his field is insufficient to meetthe plain languageof this regulation. Even
submitting documentaryevidencereflecting that the petitioner has impactedhis immediate
studentsis not persuasivein demonstratingthat his work hasimpactedthe field as a whole.
While the petitioner' andmotivationalmagicprogramsmay
reflect original contributions,the petitionerfailed to establishthat his work hasinfluencedor
impactedhis field outside the studentswho attendedthe school or camp or employees
participating in the motivational programs.
Accordingto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(v),an alien's contributionsmust be not
only originalbutof majorsignificance.Wemustpresumethatthephrase"majorsignificance"is
not superfluousand,thus,thatit hassomemeanmg.Withoutextensivedocumentationshowing
thatthepetitioner'swork hasbeenunusuallyinfluentialor widely acceptedthroughouthis field,
or hasotherwiserisen to the level of original contributionsof major significance,we cannot
concludethat hemeetsthis criterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceofthe alien'sauthorshipofscholarlyarticlesin thefield, inprofessional
or major tradepublications or othermajor media.
At the time of the original filing of the petition,counselclaimedthe petitioner'seligibility for
thiscriterionbystating:
Page19
[Thepetitioner]hasauthoredseveralarticleswithin his field of expertisewithin
the past sevenyears. We herebysubmit articlesauthoredby [the petitioner]
regardingthe Art of Magic. Thesearticlescovervarioustopics of importance
within the World of Magic including:Theconcernfor secrecyandthe exposure
of magic tricks; How to producea Magic Convention;and How to promote
m c. We also submit a seriesof articleshe authoredwithin the
titled wherehetaughtmagicto readers.
A reviewof therecordof proceedingreflectsthatthepetitionersubmitteduncertifiedtranslations
along with recreateddocuments,which are not original documentsor copiesof the original
documents,of the following.
1. An articleentitled,
e le
In addition,counselsubmittedsix magazinecoversand articleswithout any translationsand
claimedfor all of themthat they werefrom the andthat the
petitioner"contributedwith his knowledgeandexperienceto the mostimportantmagazinefor
childrenandteenagersin Peru."
However,regardingitems1 - 4, the Englishtranslationsaccompanyingthearticlesfail to comply
with 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3),which requiresthat "[a]ny documentcontainingforeign language
submittedto USCIS shall be accompaniedby a full English languagetranslationwhich the
translatorhascertifiedascompleteandaccurate,andby the translator'scertificationthat heor
she is competentto translatefrom the foreign languageinto English." Furthermore,as the
petitioner failed to submit the original articlesor copiesof the original articles, we cannot
concludethatthe petitioner,in fact,wrotethesearticlesor thattheyappearedin professionalor
majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia. Regarding,the claimedarticlesfrom Magazine
Aventuras De Genios, the petitioner failed to submit any translations,let alone certified
translations. Becausethe petitionerfailed to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).the AAO
cannot determinewhetherthe evidencesupportsthe petitioner'sclaims. Accordingly, the
evidenceis not probativeandwill not beaccordedanyweightin thisproceeding.
Nonetheless,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires
"[e]videnceof the alien's authorshipof scholarlyarticlesin the field, in professionalor major
tradepublicationsor othermajor media[emphasisadded]." Generally,scholarlyarticlesare
writtenby andfor expertsin a particularfield of study,arepeer-reviewed,andcontainreferences
to sourcesusedin the articles. In this case,the documentaryevidencedoesnot containthe
characteristicsof scholarlyarticlesand appearsto be more for entertainmentthan scholarly
purposes.Thereis noevidencedemonstratingthatthearticleshaveattractedscholarlyattention.
As thereis no evidencedemonstratingthat thedocumentationwerepeer-reviewed,containany
Page20
referencesto sources,or were otherwiseconsidered"scholarly," the petitioner's documentation
are insufficient to meet this criterion. Furthermore,the petitioner failed to establishthat
PerumagiaandMagazineAventurasDe Geniosareprofessionalor majortradepublicationsor
othermajormedia.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitionsor
showcases.
At the time of the original filing of the petition,counselclaimedthe petitioner'seligibility for
this criterion by stating:
[The petitioner's] art, talent, and expertiseas a ProfessionalMagician are
constantlyon displayvia the numerousexhibitsand magic-showshe performs
annually. We herebysubmita list of showshehasperformedin or will perform
in from 2007- 2009. His work hasbeenondisplayonNationalandInternational
Television and within the National and InternationalNewspapersandMagazines
asevidencedherein.
Onappeal,counselargues:
The Texas Service Center erred in refusing to consider the extensive
documentationas to the Petitioner'swork having beenon display at artistic
exhibitionsor showcasesasper8 CFR§204.5(h)(3)(vii).
TheTexasServiceCentermistakenlystates"this elementpertainsto aliensin the
performingarts. It cannotbefoundto applyhere." MAGIC is consideredto bea
"performing art." PleaseseeExhibit "6" whereinWikipediadefinesMagic as
follows:
Magic is a performing art that entertainsan audienceby creating
illusions of seeminglyimpossibleor supernaturalfeats, using
purelynaturalmeans. Thesefeatsarecalledmagictricks, effects
or illusions.
Regardingcounsel'ssubmissionof Wikipedia'sdefinition of magic,thereare no assurances
aboutthereliability of thecontentfrom thisopen,user-editedInternetsite. As such,wewill not
assignweight to informationfrom Wikipedia. SeeLaamilemBadasav. Michael Mukasey540
F.3d909(8thCir.2008).5
Seealsotheonlinecontentfrom http: enmikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Generaldisclaimer,accessedon August
3,2010,andcopyincorporatedintotherecordof proceedingissubjecttothefollowinggeneraldisclaimer:
Page21
Nevertheless,we agreethat magic is in the performingarts. However,we disagreewith the
director'sconclusionthat this criterion "pertainsto aliensin the performingarts." The plain
languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii)requires"[e]videnceof the displayof
the alien'swork in the field at artisticexhibitionsor showcases."Therefore,this criteriondoes
not relateto the performingarts. It is inherentfor the performingartist to performbeforean
audience. We find thatthepetitioner'sperformancesarebestconsideredunderthecommercial
successesin theperformingartscriterionat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(x),whicharediscussedlaterin
thisdecision.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,as shownby boxoffice
receiptsor recorc4cassette,compactdisk.or videosales,
In the director's decision, he indicated that this criterion applies to the performing arts.
However,while we agreewith the director,the directorerroneouslystatedthat "[ijt cannotbe
foundto applyhere." As statedpreviously,thepetitioneris amagician,andthepetitioner'sfield
is in the performingarts. As such,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(x)falls within the
purviewof thepetitioner'soccupation.
On appeal,counscìargues:
Theunderlyingrecordat Exhibit "8" of the 1-140Packageclearlyestablishesthe
Petitioner'scommercialsuccessin the performingart[s] as evidencedby his
havingbeenfeaturedon PeruvianandInternationaltelevisionover 100timeson
prominent networks and shows such as CNN, Telemundo,and Univision's
DespiertaAmerica, and as further evidencedby his having performedas a
ProfessionalMagicianfor numerouslargecorporationsincluding:(1) Nextel;(2)
ContinentalAirlines; (3) Coca-Cola;(4) IBM; (S) SamsungElectronics;(6)
Dunkin Donuts;(7) Lan PeruAirlines; (8) UnitedNationsWorld FoodProgram;
(9) Daewoo;(10)TelmexPeru;(11)PGATour;(12)UniversalStudios,andmany
others.
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GURANTEEOF VALIDITY. Wikipediais anonlineopen-content
collaborativeencyclopedia,thatis, a voluntaryassociationof individualsandgroupsworkingto
developa commonresourceof humanknowledge.The structureof the projectallowsanyone
with an Intemetconnectionto alterits content.Pleasebeadvisedthatnothingfoundherehas
necessarilybeenreviewedby peoplewith theexpertiserequiredto provideyouwith complete,
accurateor reliableinformation.. . . Wikipediacannotguaranteethe validity of the information
found here. The contentof any givenarticlemay recentlyhavebeenchanged,vandalizedor
alteredby someonewhoseopiniondoesnotcorrespondwith thestateof knowledgein therelevant
fields.
Page22
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x)requires"[e]videnceof
commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,asshownby box office receiptsor record.cassette,
compactdisk, or video sales." As this regulatorycriterionspecificallyrequiresthe petitioner's
commercialsuccesses"asshownby boxofficereceiptsor record,cassette,compactdisk,or video
sales,"the petitioner'stelevisionappearancesandcorporateperformancesdo not meetthe plain
languageof theregulation.
Furthermore,while counselsubmittedwhatappearsto be a self-compiledlist of the petitioner's
performancesat variousvenues,thepetitionersubmittedsomeDVDsof histelevisionappearances
on such show as "CNN En Espanol,""El Vacilon," "Zona Zero," and "QuieremeDescalzi."
However,merelysubmittingevidencereflectingthatthepetitionerperformedat numerousevents
without documentaryevidencedemonstrating"commercialsuccesses"is insufficientto meetthe
plainlanguageof theregulation.Thepetitionerfailedtosubmitanydocumentaryevidencein fom1
of "box office receiptsor record,cassette,compactdisk, or video sales"to demonstratehis
commercialsuccesses.Thereis no evidenceshowingthatpetitioner'sperformancesconsistently
drew recordcrowdsor wereregularsell-outperformances.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
B. Final MeritsDetermination
In accordancewith theKazarianopinion,wemustnextconducta final meritsdeterminationthat
considersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror notthepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1)
a "level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisen
to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor,"8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2);and(2) "that the alienhas
sustainednational or international acclaim and that his or her achievementshave been
recognizedin the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i),and 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).SeealsoKazarian.596 F.3dat 1115. The
petitionerestablishedeligibility for oneof thecriteria,in whichat leastthreearerequiredunder
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case,many of the deficienciesin the
documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressedin our preceding
discussionof theregulatorycriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)providesthat"[a] petitionfor analienof extraordinary
ability must be accompaniedby evidencethatthe alienhassustainednationalor international
acclaim and that his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise." The
petitioner'sevidencemust be evaluatedin termsof theserequirements.The weight given to
evidencesubmittedto fulfill thecriterionat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),therefore,dependson the
extentto which suchevidencedemonstrates,reflects,or is consistentwith sustainednationalor
internationalacclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary
standardwould not be consistentwith the regulatorydefinition of "extraordinaryability" as"a
levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento
theverytop of the field of endeavor."8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).Whilethepetitionerfailedto
Page23
establisheligibility underthe publishedmaterialcriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),we note that the mostrecentarticle was publishedon November7. 2007,
almostoneyearprior to the filing of the petition. In addition,the majority of the documents
reflectmaterialfrom 2001- 2004,with little materialoccurringafter2004. For thesereasons,
wedonotfind thatsuchevidencedemonstratessustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Moreover,we cannot ignore that the statuterequiresthe petitioner to submit "extensive
documentation"of the beneficiary'ssustainednationalor internationalacclaim. Seesection
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The commentaryfor the proposedregulationsimplementingsection
203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct providethatthe"intentof Congressthata veryhighstandardbesetfor
aliensof extraordinaryability is reflectedin this regulationby requiringthe petitionerto present
moreextensivedocumentationthanthatrequired"for lesserclassifications.56 Fed.Reg.30703,
30704(July5. 1991).In this case,thepetitionerreliesoncounsel'sself-compileddocumentation
without providing any independent,objectiveevidencefor the sourceof counsel'sclaims. In
addition,the petitionersubmittedevidencethat failed to containfull andcertifiedtranslations.
Further, while the petitioner claimed to have performed extensively nationally and
internationally,the only evidencesubmittedwas a self-compiledlist of performances. An
individual who has sustainednational or internationalacclaim as a magician should be able to
producedocumentaryevidencereflectingcommercialsuccesses.
Whilethepetitionerestablishedeligibility for thejudgingcriterionpursuantto theregulationat8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv),thepetitionerestablishedhis eligibility basedonjudging at the
upphoongoefneth
statedthat bringsthe bestentertainersfrom aroundthe world to perform
andlecture." However,thedocumentationis insufficientto establishthatthepetitioneris "that
smallpercentageof individualsthat haverisento the very top of their field of endeavor." Cf,
Matterof Price,20 l&N Dec.953,954(Assoc.Commr.1994);56 Fed.Reg.at 60899(USCIS
haslong heldthat evenathletesperformingat themajor leagueleveldo not automaticallymeet
the "extraordinaryability" standard). We would be morepersuadedby evidencespecifically
reflectingthatthepetitionerjudgednationallyor internationallyacclaimedmagiciansratherthan
a generalclaimfrom a referenceletterstatingthatthepetitionerjudgedthebestentertainersfrom
aroundthe world.
Thepetitionerfailedto submitevidencedemonstratingthathe"is oneof thatsmallpercentagewho
haverisento theverytopof thefield." In addition,thepetitionerhasnotdemonstratedhis"career
of acclaimedwork in thefield" ascontemplatedbyCongress.H.R.Rep.No. 101-723,59(Sept.19,
1990).
Theconclusionwereachby consideringtheevidenceto meeteachcriterionseparatelyis consistent
with a review of the evidencein the aggregate.Evenin the aggregate,the evidencedoesnot
distinguishthepetitionerasoneof thesmallpercentagewhohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof
endeavor.Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claim of extraordinaryability mustclearly
Page24
demonstratethatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandis oneof the
smallpercentagewhohasrisento theverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
III. O-1 Nonimmigrant Admission
Wenotethatatthetimeof thefiling of thepetition,thepetitionerwaslastadmittedto theUnited
Stateson July 27, 2008, as an 0-1 nonimmigrantvisa petition for an alien of extraordinary
ability in thearts. Althoughthewords"extraordinaryability" areusedin theAct for classification
of artistsunderboththenonimmigrant0-1 andthefirst preferenceemployment-basedimmigrant
categories,the statuteandregulationsdefinethe termdifferentlyfor eachclassification.Section
101(a)(46)of the Act statesthat"[t]he term'extraordinaryability' means,for purposesof section
101(a)(15)(O)(i),in the case of the arts, distinction." The O-1 regulationreiteratesthat
"[e]xtraordinaryability in the field of arts meansdistinction." 8 C.F.R. §214.2(o)(3)(ii).
"Distinction"is a lowerstandardthanthatrequiredfor theimmigrantclassification,whichdefines
extraordinaryability as "a level of expertiseindicatingthat the individualis oneof that small
percentagewho haverisento the verytop of thefield of endeavor."8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).The
evidentiarycriteria for thesetwo classificationsalso differ in severalrespects,for example,
nominationsfor awards or prizes are acceptableevidenceof O-1 eligibility. 8 C.F.R.
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A),but the immigrantclassificationrequiresactual receiptof nationallyor
internationallyrecognizedawardsor prizes.8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i).Giventheclearstatutoryand
regulatory distinction between these two classifications,the petitioner's receipt of O-1
nonimmigrantclassificationis notevidenceof hiseligibility for immigrantclassificationasanalien
with extraordinaryability. Further,we do not find that an approvalof a nonimmigrantvisa
mandatestheapprovalof asimilarimmigrantvisa. Eachcasemustdecidedonacase-by-casebasis
uponreviewof theevidenceof record.
It must be notedthat many I-140 immigrantpetitionsaredeniedafter USCISapprovesprior
nonimmigrantpetitions. See,e.g.,Q Data Consulting,Inc. v. INS,293F. Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C.
2003);IKEA USv. USDept.of Justice,48 F. Supp.2d22 (D.D.C.1999);FedinBrothersCo.
Ltd.v.Sava,724F.Supp.I 103(E.D.N.Y.1989).BecauseUSCISspendslesstimereviewingl-
129nonimmigrantpetitionsthan I-140 immigrantpetitions.somenommmigrantpetitionsare
simply approvedin error. Q Data Consulting,Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp.2d at 29-30; seealso
TexasA&M Univ.v.Upchurch,99Fed.Appx.556,2004WL 1240482(5thCir.2004)(findingthat
priorapprovalsdo notprecludeUSCISfromdenyinganextensionof theoriginalvisabasedona
reassessmentof thealien's qualifications).
The AAO is not requiredto approveapplicationsor petitionswhereeligibility has not been
demonstrated,merelybecauseof priorapprovalsthatmayhavebeenerroneous.See,e.g.,Matterof
ChurchScientologvInternational,19I&N Dec.593,597(Comm.1988).It would be absurdto
suggestthat USCISor anyagencymusttreatacknowledgederrorsasbindingprecedent.Sussex
Engg.Ltd v.Montgomery,825F.2d1084,1090(6thCir.1987),cert.denied,485U.S.1008(1988).
Furthermore,the AAO's authorityover the servicecentersis comparableto the relationship
betweena courtof appealsanda districtcourt. Evenif a servicecenterdirectorhasapproveda
Page25
nonimmigrantpetition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be boundto follow the
contradictorydecisionof a servicecenter. LouisianaPhilharmonic Orchestrav. INS, 2000 WL
282785(ED.La.),affd, 248F.3d1139(5thCir.2001),cert.denied,122S.Ct.51(2001).
An applicationor petitionthatfails to complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelaw maybe
deniedby the AAO evenif the ServiceCenterdoesnot identifyall of thegroundsfor denialin
the initial decision. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229 F. Supp.2d at 1043,
affd, 345F.3dat 683;seealsoSoltanev. DOJ,381F.3dat 145(notingthattheAAO conducts
appellatereviewonadenovobasis).
IV. Conclusion
Reviewof the recorddoesnot establishthatthe petitionerhasdistinguishedhimselfto suchan
extentthathemaybesaidto haveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandto be
within the smallpercentageat the very top of his field. Theevidenceis not persuasivethatthe
petitioner'sachievementssethim significantlyabovealmostall othersin hisfield ata nationalor
internationallevel. Therefore,the petitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theAct, andthepetitionmaynotbeapproved.
Thepetitionwill bedeniedfor theabovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasanindependent
andalternativebasisfor denial. In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for
thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.
Here,thatburdenhasnotbeenmet.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.