dismissed EB-1A Case: Monster Truck Driver / Performer

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Department of HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W., MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: NOV 2 5 20110FFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Worker as an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALF OFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If youbelievethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby usin reachingourdecision,or youhaveadditional
informationthat you wishto haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.
Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto the office thatoriginally decidedyour caseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor
Motion, with a feeof $630. Pleasebeawarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat any motionmust
befiled within 30 daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
erryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.users.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The employment-basedimmigrantvisa petition was deniedby the Director,
NebraskaServiceCenter,on February12,2010,andis now beforethe AdministrativeAppeals
Office(AAO) onappeal.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. Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerhadnot establishedthe
requisiteextraordinaryability and failed to submit extensivedocumentationof his sustained
nationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthe
statutethat the petitionerdemonstrate"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of his or her achievements.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 can establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-time
achievement,specificallya major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof such
an award,the regulationoutlinesten categoriesof specificevidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)
through(x). The petitionermust submit qualifying evidenceunderat leastthree of the ten
regulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establishthebasiceligibility requirements.
On appeal,counselclaimsthat the petitionermeetsat leastthreeof the regulatorycriteria at 8
C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).
I. Law
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available. . . to qualified
immigrantswho arealiensdescribedin anyof the followingsubparagraphs(A)
through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability. - An alienis describedin this
subparagraphif --
(i) thealienhasextraordinaryability in thesciences,
arts,education,business,or athleticswhich hasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednationalor international
acclaim and whose achievementshave been
recognized in the field through extensive
documentation,
(ii) the alien seeksto enter the United Statesto
continuework in theareaof extraordinaryability, and
Page3
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill
substantiallybenefitprospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S. CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(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 thoseindividuals in that small percentagewho haverisen to the very top of the
field of endeavor.Id. and8 C.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, international
recognizedaward)or throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the
following tencategoriesof evidence.
(i) Documentationof the alien's receipt of lessernationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of 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,relatingtothealien'sworkin thefieldfor whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshallincludethe title, date,andauthorof the material,and
anynecessarytranslation;
(iv) Evidenceof thealien's participation,eitherindividually or on apanel,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) Evidence of the alien's authorshipof scholarly articles in the field, in
professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia;
(vii) Evidenceof thedisplayof thealien'swork in thefield atartisticexhibitionsor
showcases;
(viii) Evidencethat the alien has performedin a leadingor critical role for
organizationsor establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation;
Page4
(ix) Evidencethatthealienhascommandedahighsalaryor othersignificantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin thefield; or
(x) Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,asshownbyboxoffice
receiptsorrecord,cassette,compactdisk,or videosales.
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof a
petitionfiledunderthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).Although
the courtupheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meetagivenevidentiarycriterion.1With respectto thecriteria
at 8 C.F.R.§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), the courtconcludedthat while USCISmay haveraised
legitimateconcemsaboutthe 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(whichtheAAO did)," andif the
petitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed
to satisfythe regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at
1122(citingto 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).Thecourtalsoexplainedthe"finalmeritsdetermination"as
thecorollaryto thisprocedure:
If a petitionerhassubmittedtherequisiteevidence,USCISdetermineswhetherthe
evidencedemonstratesbotha"levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis one
of thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof the[ir] field of endeavor,"
8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2),and"thatthe alienhassustainednationalor international
acclaimand that his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of
expertise."8C.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).
Id. 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 thedirectorreachedhisorherconclusionbyusingaone-stepanalysis
ratherthanthetwo-stepanalysisdictatedby theKazariancourt. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v.
UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),aff'd,345F.3d683(9thCir. 2003);
seealso Soltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145(3d Cir. 2004)(notingthat the AAO conducts
appellatereviewonadenovobasis).
Specifically,thecourtstatedthattheAAO hadunilaterallyimposednovel,substantive,or evidentiaryrequirernents
beyondthosesetforth in theregulationsat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page5
II. Analysis
A. EvidentiaryCriteria
This petition, filed on December21, 2009, seeksto classify the petitioneras an alien with
extraordinaryability as an extremeentertainer/eventcoordinator. The AAO notesthat the
petitionerfailed to submit any documentaryevidenceregardingthe field of eventcoordination.
Instead,the documentaryevidencereflectsthat the petitioner'soccupationasa monstertruck
driver andtelevisionandmovieperformer. Thepetitionerhassubmittedevidencepertainingto
thefollowing criteriaunder8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).2
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
The directordeterminedthat the petitionerfailed to establisheligibility for this criterion. The
plain languageof the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires"[d]ocumentationof the
alien'sreceiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor excellence
in thefield of endeavor."Moreover,it is thepetitioner'sburdento establisheligibility for every
elementof this criterion. Not only mustthe petitionerdemonstratehis receiptof prizesand
awards,he must also demonstratethat thoseprizesandawardsarenationally or internationally
recognizedfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.In otherwords,thepetitionermustestablish
thathis prizesandawardsarerecognizednationallyor internationallyfor excellencein thefield
beyondtheawardingentities.
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion basedon his finishes at Monster Jam
competitions,aswell asawardswonby moviesin whichthepetitionerappeared.At theoutset,
while not addressedby the directorin her decision,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)
providesin pertinentpart:
(i) The non-existenceor other unavailability or required evidence creates a
presumptionof ineligibility. If a requireddocument,suchasa birth or marriage
certificate,doesnot exist or cannotbe obtained,an applicantor petitioner must
demonstratethis andsubmitsecondaryevidence,suchaschurchor schoolrecords,
pertinentto thefactatissue.If secondaryevidencealsodoesnotexistor cannotbe
obtained,theapplicantor petitionermustdemonstratetheunavailabilityof boththe
required documentand relevant secondaryevidence,and submit two or more
affidavits,swornto or affirmedby personswho arenot partiesto thepetitionwho
have direct personalknowledgeof the event and circumstances. Secondary
evidencemustovercometheunavailabilityof primaryevidence,andaffidavitsmust
overcometheunavailabilityof bothprimaryandsecondaryevidence.
2Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimto meetor submitevidencerelatingto thecriterianotdiscussedin thisdecision.
Page6
As indicatedabove,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)(i)providesthat the non-existenceor
unavailabilityof requiredevidencecreatesa presumptionof ineligibility. Accordingto thesame
regulation,onlywherethepetitionerdemonstratesthatprimaryevidencedoesnotexistor cannotbe
obtainedmay the petitionerrely on secondaryevidenceandonly wheresecondaryevidenceis
demonstratedto be unavailablemay the petitionerrely on affidavits. In this case,while the
petitionersubmittedsecondaryevidence,suchasscreenshotsfrom websites,as well as reference
letters,the petitionerfailed to submit any documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat primary
evidencedoesnot existor cannotbe obtained.As such,thepetitionerfailedto comply with the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§103.2(b)(2),andthe AAO will not considerthe petitioner'ssecondary
evidence.Accordingly,theevidenceisnotprobativeandwill notbeaccordedanyweightin this
proceeding.
Notwithstandingthe above,regardingthe petitioner'sMonsterJam competitions,the director
found:
[I]n reviewing the evidenceit doesnot appearthat winning theseraceshas
resultedin thepetitionerreceivinganaward. This is similarto othersportssuch
as basketballor baseballwhere winning a regular seasongamesdoes not
constituteanaward. It appearsthatthepetitionerdid competein anationalfinals
eventbutdid notfinish with ahighenoughplacingto receiveanaward.
Onappeal,counselargues:
This is an exampleof usingan incorrectanalogyto diminishthe significanceof
theaward.MonsterTruckcompetitionsaretournamentswherethirty professional
driverscompeteto win prizemoneybasedontheirfinal standings.Thisis akinto
professionalgolf, whereactuallywinning a tournamentis a rarity. It is not like a
regularseasonbaseballor basketballgame.
Counselfailed to submit any documentaryevidencesupportinghis assertionsthat "Monster
Truck competitions are tournaments where thirty professional drivers compete to win prize
moneybasedon their final standings."Theunsupportedstatementsof counselon appealor in a
motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v.
Phinpathya,464 U.S. 183,188-89n.6 (1984). Therecordof proceedingcontainsno evidenceof
the dynamicsof the Monster Jam tour such as the bylaws or internal governing procedures.
Nonetheless,the AAO generallyagreeswith the director that in a sport wherewinning regular
seasoncompetitionsin which one individual is not distinguishedfrom one anotherdoes not
demonstrateevidenceof a receipt of a prize or award. However, in a sport or event where
individualscompeteattournamentsandthewinnersor finishersaredistinguishedor specifically
recognized,suchasby theawardingof prizemoneyfor eachfinish, it wouldgenerallyconstitute
evidenceof a prize or an award. In the casehere,the documentaryevidencesubmittedby the
petitionerfails to reflectthecompositionof theMonsterJamtour,soasto establishthatprizesor
awardsaregarneredfor finishesat theevents.Moreover,while thepetitionersubmittedvarious
screenshotsfrom www.monsterlam.comreflectingthat thepetitionercompetedat five Monster
Jam events,the screenshotsfail to establishthat the petitioner garneredany prizes or awards.
Page7
The petitioner submittedinsufficient documentaryevidenceto demonstratethat he receivedany
prizesor awardsfrom hiscompetitions.
The AAO notesthat the petitionersubmitteda blog from http:Ntmbinsider.blogspot.comin
whichtheauthorofferedhis opinionthatthepetitionershouldwin theMonsterJam"Rookieof
theYear" award. However,thepetitionerfailedto submitanydocumentaryevidence,let alone
primaryevidence,demonstratingthatheactuallywontheaward. Moreover,thepetitionerfailed
to submitanydocumentaryevidenceestablishingthatthe awardis nationallyor internationally
recognizedfor excellencein thefield.
Regardingthemovieawards,thedirectorfound:
The mere fact that the petitioner appearedin theseaward winning films is
insufficient to meet this criterion. To find otherwisewould be to indicate that
anyonewhohaseverappearedin anawardwinningfilm meetsthiscriterion.
On appeal,counselarguesthat the director's "reasoningis at odds with AAO precedent
regardingapplicability of criterian [sic] (i) to collaborativeinternationalawards." However,
counselcitesin his brief to unpublisheddecisionsby theAAO. While theregulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.3(c)providesthat AAO precedentdecisionsarebinding on all USCISemployeesin the
administration of the Act, unpublisheddecisions are not similarly binding. Moreover, the
specificfactsof the case,which include,for instance,information on the awardsandrecipients,
arenot in therecord. Without therecords,it cannotbedeterminedwhetherthefactsof anyother
casearesimilar to thoseof thepresentcase. Regardless,theAAO generallyagreesthat "[t]he
[AAO] doesnot disregardOlympic team medals" as long as there is specific information
establishingthatthealienwasrecognizedasbeingoneof therecipientsof theaward. As citedin
the decisionin counsel'sbrief, wherean individual is a memberof a relay team,he "was
personallyawardedthebronzemedalandwasoneof therelayswimmersto competein therelay
race." In thatcase,theindividualwasspecificallyrecognizedasa relayteammemberby being
presentedwith amedalattheOlympics.
In the casehere, the petitioner failed to submit primary evidenceof his purported awards
pursuantto the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2). Regardless,the titioner submitted
screenshotsfrom various websitesand referenceletters reflecting that
who statedthat thepetitioner"was critical to the film's winning of the X-DanceBest
Film Award," andthepetitioner's"stunt-workandactingplayedakey role in thesuccessof the
films andwerecritical in winningthethreeawards,"theAAO cannotconcludethatawardsthat
were not specifically presentedto the petitioner are tantamountto his receipt of nationally or
internationallyrecognizedawards;it cannotsufficethatthepetitionerwasonememberof alarge
groupthat earnedcollectiverecognition. As the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
Page8
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt" of prizes or awards, the
submissionof documentaryevidencereflectingawardswon by moviesin which the petitioner
contributedin some capacity is insufficient to demonstratethat the petitioner receiveda
nationallyor internationallyrecognizedawardfor excellencein the field. It is notedthat the
petitioner submitted a screenshotfrom http://motocross.transworld.netreflecting that the
Xtremey Awards recognize individual performances,such as Best Sportbike Freestyle
PerformanceandBestMX FreestylePerformancein aVideo. Thereis nodocumentaryevidence
establishingthatthealienwasindividuallyrecognizedby theX-DanceFilm Festivalor Xtremey
Awardsfor his performancesandstunt-workin anyof themovies.
As discussed,the plain languageof this regulatory criterion specifically requiresthat the
petitionerdemonstratehis receiptof nationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor
excellencein his field. The petitionerfailed to demonstratethathe hasreceivedanyprizesor
awards,let alonenationally or internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein the
field.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Documentation of the alien's membershipin associations in thefield for which
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievementsof their
members,as judged by recognizednational or international experts in their
disciplines orfields.
In thedirector'sdecision,shedeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto establisheligibility for this
criterion. On appeal,counselarguesthat the petitioner'sparticipationwith Nitro Circus and
MonsterJamdemonstrateshiseligibility for thiscriterion.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires"[d}ocumentationof
the alien's membershipin associationsin the field for which classificationis sought,which
require outstanding achievementsof their members, as judged by recognized national or
international experts in their disciplines or fields [emphasis added]." While the petitioner
submittedrecommendationletters from acclaimedindividuals, such as
attestingto the petitioner'sparticipationwith Nitro Circusan onster am,
the petitionerfailed to submitany documentaryevidence,i.e., articlesof association,so asto
establishthattheyareassociations.In fact,asindicatedby RonnieRenner'sletter,Nitro Circus
is "MTV's populartelevisionshowandspinofffilms [emphasisadded]." Thepetitionerfailedto
establishthattelevisionproductionsor monstertruck competitionsequateto theplain language
of theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii)requiringassociations.TheAAO notesthatthere
areassociationsin thepetitioner'sfield suchastheStuntmen'sAssociation.3
Furthermore,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)requiresthat
membershi " ecognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor
fields." statedthatparticipationin Nitro Circus"waschosenby producers
3Seehttp:Nwww.stuntmen.com/.AccessedonOctober25,2011,andincorporatedintotherecordof proceeding.
Page9
at MTV to be the starsof oneof the mostpopularshowson television," the petitioner failed to
submit any documentary evidence demonstratingthat MTV producers are comprised of
- ...' -e e, 'ee, e e -rnationalexpertsin thepetitioner'sfields. Similarly, although
indicatedthat the petitioner'sparticipationwith MonsterJam was
selectedby the petitioner failed to submit any documentaryevidence
establishingthatFeld Motorsportsincludedrecognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their
disciplinesorfields.
As discussed,the petitioner cannotmeet the plain languageof the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii)by simply submittingdocumentaryevidencereflecting his participationon
televisionshows,movie productions,or in monstertruck competitions. It is the petitioner's
burdento establisheligibility for everyelementof this criterion. TheAAO cannotconcludethat
actingor performingstuntwork on a televisionshow,aswell asdriving trucksin competitions,
constitutesmembershipin associationsthat require outstandingachievementsas judged by
recognizednationalor internationalexperts.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Publishedmaterial aboutthealien 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, and any necessarytranslation.
The directordeterminedthat the petitionerfailed to establisheligibility for this criterion. A
review of the record of proceedingreflectsthat at the initial filing of the petition, counsel
indicatedin his letter that the petitionerwaseligible for this criterionbasedon the following
documentation:
1. A screenshotentitled, ' unidentified date, unidentified
author,www.monsteriam.com;
2. Screenshotsfrom www.monsterjam.comregardingresultsfrom Calgary,
Alberta,Canada;Columbus,OH; Peoria,IL; Pittsburgh,PA; andTupelo,
MS;
3. A blog entitled, "Monster Jam World Finals: Thoughts& Analysis,"
March28,2008,unidentifiedauthor,http://tmbinsider.blogspot.com;
4. An article entitled, "Cam McQueen," unidentified date, unidentified
author,MonsterJamYearBook
5. A screenshotentitled, "5 Questionsfor World Finals Driver - Cam
McQueen," unidentified date, unidentified author,
www.monsterjamonline.com;
Page10
6. A screenshot entitled, "Online Video Guide," unidentified date,
unidentifiedauthor,http://video.tyguide.com;
7. A screenshotentitled,"Fuel TV AnnouncesNew Action ComedySeries
'Thrillbillies,'" March 26, 2009,
http://forum.surfermag.com;
8. A screenshotentitled, "Cam McQueen,"unidentifieddate,unidentified
author,www.imb.com;
9. A screenshotentitled, "Nitro Circus > Ep. 206," unidentified date,
unidentifiedauthor,www.mtv.com;
10. A screenshotentitled, "Thrillbillies Doube Wide," unidentifieddate,
unidentifiedauthor,http://www.x-tremevideo.com;
11. A screenshot entitled, "Thrillbillies, Season 1," unidentified date,
unidentifiedauthor,http://videostore.rr.com;
12. A screenshotentitled, "Hot Shots: NC's Andy Bell is About to Eat
Dinner," October1,2009,DebbieNewman,http://remotecontrol.mtv.com;
and
13. A screenshotentitled, "X-Dance Honors 2008," January 29, 2008,
unidentifiedauthor,www.x-dance.com.
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor additionalevidencepursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(8),counselsubmittedthefollowing additionaldocumentation:
A. A screenshotentitled, "AV Room Video Info," August 19, 2009, Rob
Hamilton, www.99x.com;
B. An articleentitled,"MonsterJob,"January21, 2010, , The
State
C. A sc " onsterTruck CrushesColts Car," January29,
2010 , www.nola.com;and
D. A photoof thepetitionerfrom the 2010MonsterJamOfficial Souvenir
Yearbook.
Theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requires"[p]ublishedmaterial
aboutthe alienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia,relatingto the
Page11
alien'swork in the field for whichclassificationis sought." In general,in orderfor published
materialto meetthis criterion,it mustbe primarily aboutthe petitionerand, as statedin the
regulations,beprintedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.To qualify
asmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor internationaldistribution.Some
newspapers,suchastheNewYorkTimes,nominallyserveaparticularlocalitybut wouldqualifyas
major mediabecauseof significantnationaldistribution,unlike smalllocal communitypapers.
Furthermore,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthat
"[s]uch evidenceshall includethe title, date,and authorof the material,and any necessary
translation."
The AAO notes that the petitioner's documentaryevidenceconsists almost entirely of
screenshotsfrom theInternet. However,theAAO is not persuadedthatpostingson theInternet
are automaticallyconsideredmajor media. The petitionerfailed to submit any documentary
evidenceestablishingthat the websitesare consideredmajor media. In today's world, many
publications,regardlessof size and distribution, organizations,and bloggersadvertise,post
stories,and provide generalinformationon the Internet. To ignorethis reality would be to
renderthe "major media"requirementmeaningless.However,the AAO is not persuadedthat
internationalaccessibilityby itself is a realisticindicatorof whethera givenwebsiteis "major
media."
Thepetitionerfailed to submitanydocumentaryevidencethat meetsthe plain languageof the
regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). With the exceptionof items7, 12, andA - C, the
petitionerfailedto includethetitle, date,and/orauthorof thematerialasrequiredpursuantto the
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit any
documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat any of the websites,the 2010 Monster Jam Official
SouvenirYearbook,and TheStateareprofessionalor major tradepublicationsor othermajor
media.
Notwithstandingtheabove,item 1is theonly documentthatreflectsmaterialaboutthepetitioner
relating to his work. However,the petitionerfailed to include the date and author of the
screenshot,and the petitioner failed to submit any documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat
www.monsterjam.comis aprofessionalor majortradepublicationor othermajormedia.
Regardingitem 2, while thepetitioneris mentionedascompetingat events,the screenshotsare
aboutthecompetitionresultsfrom thefive events.In otherwords,thescreenshotsarenot about
the petitionerrelatingto his work; insteadthe screenshotsareaboutthe competitionsfrom the
five venues. Articles that arenot aboutthe petitionerdo not meetthis regulatorycriterion. See,
e.g.,Negro-Plumpev. Okin,2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJat*l, *7 (D. Nev.Sept.8,2008)(upholding
a finding thatarticlesabouta showarenot abouttheactor). Similarly,item 3 reflectsa blog in
which the unidentifiedbloggerprovideshis thoughtsto the MonsterJam World Finals and
4 Even with nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmustbe given to the placementof the article. For
example,anarticlethatappearsin the WashingtonPost,but in a sectionthat is distributedonly in FairfaxCounty,
Virginia, for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividual'sreputationoutsideof thatcounty.
Page12
briefly indicatesthatthepetitionershouldbenamed"Rookieof theYear." Theblog is notabout
thepetitioneranddoesnotdiscussthepetitionerrelatingto his work.
Regardingitems4 and 5, they reflect interviewswith the petitionerin which his answersare
simply recordedin the submittedmaterial. The authorsdo not discussthe petitioner,andthe
materialdoesnot qualify aspublishedmaterialaboutthepetitionerrelatingto his work.
Regardingitems6 - 12,thescreenshotsreflectpromotionaladvertisementsandannouncements
for thetelevisionshowsandDVDs for theseasonseriesof Nitro CircusandThrillbillies. In fact,
thepetitioneris mentionedonly onetime asbeinga castmemberandis not publishedmaterial
aboutthepetitionerrelatingto his work.
Regardingitem 13,thescreenshotis aboutthe2008X-DanceFilm Festivalratherthanaboutthe
petitionerrelatingto his work. Indeed,thepetitioneris nevermentionedin thescreenshotandis
clearlynotpublishedmaterialaboutthepetitionerrelatingto hiswork.
Regardingitem A, thescreenshotreflectsa blog postingthatthepetitionerstoppedby theradio
station. However,the screenshotprovidesno further discussionandfails to reflect published
materialaboutthepetitionerrelatingto his work. Merelysubmittinga screenshotreflectingthat
the petitionerappearedat the radio stationwithout any further discussionaboutthe petitioner
failsto meettheregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Finally, regardingitems B - D, the material was written after the filing of the petition on
December21, 2009. Eligibility mustbe establishedat thetime of filing. Therefore,the AAO
will not considertheseitems as evidenceto establishthe petitioner's eligibility. 8 C.F.R.
§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);Matter of Katigbak,14I&N Dec.45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971).A petition
cannotbeapprovedat afuturedateafterthepetitionerbecomeseligibleunderanewsetof facts.
Matterof Izummi,22I&N Dec.169,175(Comm'r1998).Thatdecisionfurtherprovides,citing
Matterof Bardouille,18I&N Dec.114(BIA 1981),thatUSCIScannot"considerfactsthatcome
intobeingonly subsequentto thefiling of apetition." Id. at 176. TheAAO notesthatregarding
item B, similar to items 4 and 5, the article reflects an interview conductedwith the petitioner in
which the petitioner's responsesareprinted in the newspaperwithout any discussionaboutthe
petitionerrelatingto his work. Moreover,regardingitemC, thescreenshotreflectsaphotograph
with a caption indicating that the petitioner wasthe truck driver crushingthe car. There is no
discussionabout the petitioner relating to his work. Finally, regardingitem D, the evidence
simplyreflectsa photographof thepetitionerfrom theyearbookwithout anypublishedmaterial
aboutthe petitionerrelatingto his work. Photographs,posters,andpromotionalmaterialdo not
meetthe plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiring "published
material" aboutthepetitionerrelatingto his work.
Again, the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requires"[p]ublished
materialaboutthealienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia,relating
to the alien's work in the field for which classificationis sought." The burdenis on the
petitionerto establishthathe meetseveryelementof this criterion. In this case,the petitioner
Page13
submittedonedocumentthatwaspublishedmaterialabouthim relatingto his work but failedto
demonstratethat www.monsterlam.comis a professionalor major trade publicationor other
majormediaandfailedto includethedateandauthorof thematerial.
Evenif thepetitionerwereto submitsupportingdocumentaryevidenceshowingthatthematerial
from www.monsterjam.commeetsall the elementsof this criterion,which he hasnot, section
203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act requiresthe submissionof extensiveevidence.Consistentwith that
statutoryrequirement,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requires
materialaboutthepetitionerin morethanonemajorpublication.Significantly,notall of thecriteria
at 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)are wordedin the plural. Specifically,the regulationsat 8 C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(ix) only requireserviceon a singlejudgingpanelor a singlehigh salary.
Thus,the AAO caninfer that the plural in the remainingregulatorycriteriahasmeaning.In a
differentcontext,federalcourtshaveupheldUSCIS' ability to interpretsignificancefrom whether
thesingularor plural is usedin a regulation.SeeMaramjayav. USCIS,Civ. Act. No. 06-2158
(RCL)at 12(D.C.Cir. March26,2008);Snapnames.comInc. v. Chertoff,2006WL 3491005at
*10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006)(upholdinganinterpretationthattheregulatoryrequirementfor "a"
bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreign equivalentdegreeat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2)requiresa single
degreeratherthanacombinationof academiccredentials).
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitionsor
showcases.
In thedirector'sdecision,shedeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto establisheligibility for this
criterion. A reviewof therecordof proceedingreflectsthatthepetitionerclaimseligibility for
this criterion basedon his television and movie appearances,as well as his Monster Jam
performances.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii)requires"[e]videnceof the
display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases[emphasis added]."
Thepetitioneris a televisionandmoviecastmember,stuntman,andmonstertruck driver. When
he is performingor driving trucksbeforeanaudience,he is not displayinghis work in thesame
sensethat anartist suchasa painteror sculptordisplayshis or her work in a gallery or museum.
Thepetitioneris performinghis work,he is not displayinghis work. In addition,to theextent
that the petitioner is a performing artist, it is inherentto his occupationto perform. Not every
performanceis an artistic exhibition designedto showcasetheperformer'sart. If the AAO were
to acceptthat a performanceartist like the petitionermeetsthis criterion, it would renderthe
regulatoryrequirementthatthepetitionermeetat leastthreecriteriameaninglessasthis criterion
would effectivelybe collapsedinto thecriterionat theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Thetencriteriain theregulationsaredesignedto coverdifferentareas;not everycriterionwill
applyto everyoccupation.
Page14
The interpretationthat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii)is limited to thevisual artsis longstandingand
hasbeenupheldby afederaldistrictcourt.Negro-Plumpev. Okin,2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJat *l,
*7 (D. Nev.Sept.8, 2008)(upholdinganinterpretationthatperformancesby a performingartist
do not fall under8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vii)). As thepetitioneris not a visualartistandhasnot
createdtangible piecesof art that were on display at artistic exhibitionsor showcases,the
petitionerhasnot submittedqualifying evidencethat meetsthe plain languagerequirementsof
theregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vii).
Therefore,while the petitioner'sperformanceshave evidentiaryvalue for other criteria, they
cannotserveto meet this criterion. Instead,as the petitioner'sperformancesare far more
relevantto the aforementioned"leadingor critical role" criterionsetforth at theregulationat 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)andthe"commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts"criterionat the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(x),they will be discussedseparatelywithin the contextof
thosecriteria.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidencethat thealien hasperformedin a leadingor critical rolefor organizations
or establishmentsthat havea distinguishedreputation.
The directordeterminedthat the petitionerfailed to establisheligibility for this criterion. A
reviewof therecordof proceedingreflectsthatthepetitionerclaimedeligibility for this criterion
basedon his rolesin televisionshowsandmovies,aswell asa MonsterJamdriver. On appeal,
counselrefersto documentaryevidencethatwasdiscussedundertheawardscriterionpursuantto
theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),themembershipcriterionpursuantto theregulationat
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii),andthepublishedmaterialcriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
The petitionersubmittedsufficient documentaryevidencereflectingthat he hasperformedin
televisionshows,movies,tours,andmonstertruckcompetitions.However,theplainlanguageof
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the alien has performed in
a leadingor critical rolefor organizationsor establishmentsthat havea distinguishedreputation
[emphasisadded]." Thepetitionerfailed to demonstratehow a televisionshow,movie,or tour
equatesto an "organization"or "establishment."Notwithstanding,a leadingrole is evidenced
from therole itself,andacritical role is onein whichthealienwasresponsiblefor thesuccessor
standingof the organizationor establishment. However, merely submitting documentary
evidenceindicatingthatthepetitioneris acastmemberfor televisionshowssuchasNitro Circus
andHillbillies, hasperformedstuntwork in moviessuchas 199 Lives: The Travis Pastrana
Story,hastouredwith thecastof Nitro Circus,andhascompetedin MonsterJamcompetitions
driving for the Pastrana 199 team does not meet the plain language of 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)withoutdemonstratingthatthepetitioner'sroleswereleadingor critical.
The documentaryevidencesubmittedby the petitioner falls short in establishingthat his
performancesand driving are reflective of leading or critical roles. While the petitioner
Page15
submittedreferenceletters,suchasfro ho generallyclaimedthatthepetitioner
"performs incredible stunts in movies and television," the petitioner failed to submit any
documentaryevidencedistinguishinghis performancesfrom the otherperformersor drivers, so
asto establishthat his roles wereleadingor critical. For example,the screenshotsreflecting
advertisementsfor theNitro CircusandHillbillies televisionshowssimplylist thepetitionerasa
castmember.In fact,theadvertisementsspecificallypromoteTravisPastranaasthe"superstar"
of the showsbut only indicatethat the petitioner is one of several"personalities." When
comparedto therolesof Mr. Pastrana,thepetitionerperformsin a far lessrole on thetelevision
shows,movies,andtours. Withoutevidenceestablishingthatthepetitionerperformedin aleading
or criticalrole,it is insufficientto simplysubmitdocumentaryevidencereflectingthatheperformed
in a television,movie,or a tour-relatedsetting. As thepetitioneris an extremeentertainer,it is
expectedthatthepetitionerwill performstuntwork for entertainmentpurposeson stageor in front
of an audience.However,merelyperforming,evenif theperformanceis considerednoteworthy,
doesnotequateto aleadingor criticalrole.
Likewise,regardingthe petitioner'srole asa monstertruck competitor,the petitionerfailed to
submit any documentaryevidencebeyond the competitions themselves. Again, while the
petitionerdemonstratedthathe competedin the MonsterJamseriesfor thePastrana199team,
the petitioner failed to submit any documentaryevidencecomparinghis roles to the other
membersof theteam,aswell asMonsterJamasa whole,soasto establishthatheperformedin
a leadingor critical role. It is notedthata reviewof the2010MonsterJamOfficial Souvenir
Yearbookreflectsonly one pageout of 145pagesis dedicatedto the petitioner,in which it
containsonly a photographandthe petitioner'sname. The AAO is not persuadedthat such
evidenceis demonstrativeof a leadingor critical role consistentwith theplain languageof the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Again, the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)requires"[e]vidence
thatthealienhasperformedin a leadingor critical role for organizationsor establishmentsthat
haveadistinguishedreputation."Theburdenis onthepetitionerto establishthathemeetsevery
elementof this criterion. Without documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat the petitioner has
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a
distinguishedreputation, the AAO cannot conclude that the petitioner meetsthis regulatory
criterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidence of commercial successesin the performing arts, as shown by box office
receiptsor record,cassette,compactdisk,or videosales.
In thedirector'sdecision,shedeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto establisheligibility for this
criterion. On appeal,counseldoesnot contestthe director'sfindingsfor this criterionor offer
additionalarguments.TheAAO, therefore,considersthis issueto be abandoned.Sepulvedav.
U.S.Att'y Gen.,401 F.3d 1226,1228n. 2 (11thCir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark,No. 09-CV-
27312011,2011WL 4711885at*1, *9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,2011)(thecourtfoundtheplaintiff's
Page16
claims to be abandonedashe failed to raisethem on appealto the AAO). It is noted that the
plain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(x)requires"[e]videnceof commercial
successesin the performingarts,asshownby box office receiptsor record,cassette,compact
disk,or videosales[emphasisadded]." In otherwords,thisregulatorycriterionrequiresevidence
of commercialsuccessesin theform of "box office receipts"or "sales." However,therecordof
proceedingfailsto reflectthatthepetitionersubmittedanydocumentaryevidenceregardingthebox
officereceiptsor salesof hisperformances.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
B. Final MeritsDetermination
In accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the AAO must next conduct a final merits
determinationthatconsidersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror notthepetitionerhas
demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertiseindicating that the individual is one of that small
percentagewho haverisento the verytop of the[ir] field of endeavor,"8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2);
and (2) "that the alien has sustainednational or international acclaim and that his or her
achievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise."Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the
Act, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i),and8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Seealso Kazarian,596F.3dat
1115. Thepetitionerfailed to meettheplain languagefor anyof thecriteria,in which at least
threeare requiredunderthe regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case,many of the
deficienciesin thedocumentationsubmittedby thepetitionerhavealreadybeenaddressedin the
AAO's precedingdiscussionof theregulatorycriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).
In evaluatingthe AAO's final meritsdetermination,the AAO mustlook at the totality of the
evidenceto determinethepetitioner'seligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct. In
thiscase,thepetitionerhascompetedin MonsterJamcompetitions,hasparticipatedin television
shows and movies, and has been mentionedon various websites. However,the personal
accomplishmentsof the petitionerfall far shortof establishingthat he "is oneof that small
percentagewho haverisen to the very top of the field of endeavor"and that he "has sustained
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievementshave been recognized in the
field of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i),and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).
The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)providesthat "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary
ability mustbe accompaniedby evidencethat the alien hassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthat his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise." The
petitioner'sevidencemust be evaluatedin termsof theserequirements.The weight given to
evidencesubmittedto fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3),therefore,dependson the
extentto which suchevidencedemonstrates,reflects,or is consistentwith sustainednationalor
internationalacclaimat the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary
standardwould not be consistentwith theregulatorydefinition of "extraordinaryability" as"a
levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewho haverisento
theverytopof thefield of endeavor."8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Page17
The AAO cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive
documentation"of his sustainednationalor internationalacclaim. Seesection203(b)(1)(A)of
theAct. Thecommentaryfor theproposedregulationsimplementingsection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of
the Act provide that the "intent of Congressthat a very high standardbe set for aliens of
extraordinaryability is reflectedin this regulationby requiringthe petitionerto presentmore
extensivedocumentationthan that required" for lesserclassifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703,
30704(July 5, 1991). Again,thepetitionerclaimedeligibility for theawardscriterionpursuant
to the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)basedon screenshotswithout submittingprimary
evidenceas requiredpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2). Moreover, the
petitionerclaimedeligibility basedon moviesthat won awardsinsteadof awardsthat were
specificallygarneredby him. In fact, oneclaim wasbasedon a blog's "Rookie of the Year"
opinionthat is clearlynot indicativeof someonewith a careerof sustainedacclaim. Similarly,
while the petitionerbasedhis eligibility for the membershipcriterion pursuantto the regulation
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) for his participation in television shows,movies, and truck
competitions,the petitioner failed to demonstratethat he is a memberof any association
requiring outstandingachievementsof their members,so asto reflect that "her achievements
havebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise." Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Furthermore,althoughtheAAO foundthatthepetitionerfailed to meet
the publishedmaterialcriterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),the
petitioneronly submittedonescreenshotthat wasabouthim relatingto his work but failed to
includethe date and authorof the material,as well as he failed to demonstratethat it was
publishedin a professionalor major tradepublicationor othermajor media. Regardless,the
petitionerfailed to demonstratethata singlescreenshotis consistentwith the sustainednational
or internationalacclaim for this highly restrictive classification. Finally, the petitioner's
performancesfor the leadingor critical role criterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)was basedon lessersupportingroles ratherthan leadingor critical roles.
Evidenceof thepetitioner'sleadingor critical roleswith organizationsthathavea distinguished
reputationis far morepersuasivethat the petitioner"is oneof that smallpercentagewho have
risento the very top of the field of endeavor." See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2). The AAO is not
persuadedthat such evidence equatesto "extensive documentation" and is demonstrative of this
highly restrictive classification. The truth is to be determinednot by the quantity of evidence
alonebutby its quality. Matterof Chawathe,25I&N Dec.369(AAO 2010)citingMatterof E-
M- 20I&N Dec.77,80(Comm'r 1989).
The evidenceof record falls short of demonstratingthe petitioner's sustainednational or
international acclaim as a monster truck driver and television and movie performer. The
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requires"[a] petition for an alien of extraordinaryability
mustbe accompaniedby evidencethatthe alienhassustainednationalor internationalacclaim
and this his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise." While the
petitionersubmitteddocumentationdemonstratingthat he is a monstertruck competitorand
movieandtelevisionperformer,thedocumentaryevidenceis not consistentwith or indicativeof
sustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Page18
USCIShaslongheldthatevenathletesperformingatthemajorleagueleveldonot automatically
meetthe statutorystandardsfor immigrantclassificationasan alien of "extraordinaryability."
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec.953,954 (Assoc.Comm'r 1994);56 Fed.Reg.at 60899. In
MatterofRacine,1995WL 153319at*1, *4 (N.D.Ill. Feb.16,1995),thecourtstated:
[T]heplainreadingof thestatutesuggeststhattheappropriatefield of comparison
is not a comparisonof Racine'sability with that of all thehockeyplayersat all
levelsof play; but rather,Racine'sability asa professionalhockeyplayerwithin
the NHL. This interpretationis consistentwith at leastoneothercourt in this
district,Grimsonv. INS,No. 93 C 3354,(N.D. Ill. September9, 1993),andthe
definitionof theterm8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2),andthediscussionsetforth in the
preambleat56Fed.Reg.60898-99.
The court's reasoningindicatesthat USCIS' interpretationof the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(2)is reasonable.Likewise,it doesnot follow thatthepetitionerwhohasnot offered
any evidencethat distinguisheshim from othersin his field, shouldnecessarilyqualify for
approvalof an extraordinaryability employment-basedvisa petition. To find otherwisewould
contravenethe regulatoryrequirementat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)that this visa categorybe
reservedfor "that smallpercentageof individualsthathaverisento thevery top of their field of
endeavor."
While thepetitionerneednot demonstratethatthereis no onemoreaccomplishedto qualify for
theclassificationsought,it a r topof hisfield of endeavoris far abovethelevel
he hasattained. For examp s an internationallyrenowneddaredevilandhas
hadstarringrolesin TheRinger,TheDukesofHazard,WalkingTall,Lordsof Dogtown,A Dirty
Shame,Daltry Calhoun, en in Black II, Jackass,JackassNumber Two, and
Jackass2.5. Moreover, on the the
and
In addition, an
and
star of several television shows and movies. When comparedto the petitioner, the referencesare
far more impressive and have establishedthemselves as that "small percentageat the very top of
thefield of endeavor."
TheconclusiontheAAO reachesby consideringtheevidenceto meeteachcategoryof evidence
at 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)separatelyis consistentwith areviewof theevidencein theaggregate.
Ultimately,theevidencein theaggregatedoesnotdistinguishthepetitionerasoneof thatsmall
percentagewho hasrisento thevery top of thefield of endeavor.8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).The
petitioner,whosedocumentaryevidencereflectseventsoccurringonly since2008,seeksahighly
restrictivevisaclassification,intendedfor individualsat thetop of their respectivefields, rather
thanfor individualsprogressingtowardthetop at someunspecifiedfuturetime. In this case,the
petitionerhas not establishedthat his achievementsat the time of filing the petition were
commensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,or thathe wasamongthatsmall
percentageattheverytopof thefield of endeavor.
Page19
III. O-1NonimmigrantAdmission
TheAAO notesthat at the time of thefiling of the petition,the petitionerwasadmittedto the
United Statesas an O-1 nonimmigranton September8, 2009. However,while USCIS has
approvedat leastoneO-1 nonimmigrantvisapetitionfiled on behalfof thepetitioner,theprior
approvaldoesnotprecludeUSCISfrom denyinganimmigrantvisapetitionbasedon adifferent,
if similarly phrased,standard.It mustbe notedthat manyI-140 immigrantpetitionsaredenied
afterUSCISapprovesprior 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.2d 22 (D.D.C.
1999);FedinBrothersCo.Ltd. v. Sava,724F. Supp.1103(E.D.N.Y. 1989). BecauseUSCIS
spendslesstime reviewingI-129 nonimmigrantpetitionsthanI-140 immigrantpetitions,some
nonimmigrantpetitions are simply approvedin error. Q Data Consulting,Inc. v. INS, 293 F.
Supp.2d at 29-30;seealso TexasA&M Univ. v. Upchurch,99 Fed.Appx. 556, 2004WL
1240482(5thCir. 2004)(findingthatprior approvalsdo not precludeUSCISfrom denyingan
extensionof theoriginalvisabasedonareassessmentof petitioner'squalifications).
The AAO is not requiredto approveapplicationsor petitionswhereeligibility has not been
demonstrated,merelybecauseof priorapprovalsthatmayhavebeenerroneous.See,e.g.,Matterof
ChurchScientologyInternational,19I&N Dec.593,597(Comm'r1988).It wouldbe absurdto
suggestthatUSCISor 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
nonimmigrantpetitionon behalfof the alien,the AAO would not be boundto follow the
contradictorydecisionof a servicecenter.LouisianaPhilharmonicOrchestrav. INS,2000WL
282785(E.D.La.),aff'd,248F.3d1139(5thCir.2001),cert.denied,122S.Ct.51(2001).
An applicationor petitionthatfailsto complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelawmaybe
deniedby theAAO evenif theServiceCenterdoesnot identify all of thegroundsfor denialin
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043,
aff'd, 345F.3dat 683;seealsoSoltanev. DOJ, 381F.3dat 145(notingthattheAAO conducts
appellatereviewonadenovobasis).
IV. Conclusion
Reviewof therecorddoesnot establishthatthepetitionerhasdistinguishedhimself to suchan
extentthathemaybesaidto haveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandto be
within thesmallpercentageat thevery top of his field. Theevidenceis not persuasivethatthe
petitioner'sachievementssethim significantlyabovealmostall othersin him field at a national
or internationallevel. Therefore,thepetitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theAct, andthepetitionmaynotbeapproved.
Page20
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.