dismissed EB-1A Case: Producer/Writer

(b)(6)
DATE: 
IN RE: 
NAY 0 5 2015 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I"290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
;;� Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
· 
According to Part 6 of the petition, the petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary 
ability" as a producer/writer, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), which makes visas available to aliens who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. In the cover letter accompanying the 
petition, the petitioner asserted that she possessed "the high level of skill and expertise required to fulfill 
the position as Executive Producer, Writer and Journalist." Within this letter, the petitioner also 
discussed her past accomplishments as an actress. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires 
documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief with additional documentary evidence. For the reasons 
discussed below, we agree that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one­
time achievement pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the 
ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the 
field of endeavor, and that she has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. --Visas shall first be made available .. . to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph if --
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained. national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially be�efit prospectively 
the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. /d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the petitioner's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the petitioner's achievements in 
the field through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient 
qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. �010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined n:ot by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Continuing in the Field of Expertise 
The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work in her area of expertise in 
the United States. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(5). The petitioner proposes to work in multiple areas, one of which must fall within her area 
of expertise. The Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) number the petitioner listed on the 
petition is 27-2012, which relates to producers and directors. 1 According to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), an executive producer creates "motion pictures, 
television shows, live theater, and other performing arts productions. They interpret a writer's script to 
1 See http://www.onetonline.org/find/result?s-27-2012&g-Go, accessed on May 1, 2015, a copy of which is 
incorporated into this record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
entertain or inform an audience."2 The petitioner is also an author of fiction and travel guide books. 
The OOH provides that writers and authors "develop written content for advertisements, books, 
magazines, .movie and television scripts, songs, and online publications.''3 The OOH indicates a 
journalist's duties are to, "inform the public about news and events happening internationally, 
nationally, and locally. They report the news for newspapers, magazines, websites, television, and 
radio.'.4 Finally, for an actress, the OOH reflects the duties are to, "express ideas and portray characters 
in theater, film, television, and other performing arts media. They also work at theme parks or other live 
events. They interpret a writer's script to entertain or inform an audience."5 These are four distinct 
occupations and the petitioner has not presented persuasive evidence or discussion to establish that any 
of the four are closely related such that she may combine evidence from two or more of these 
occupations to establish that she enjoys extraordinary ability in one of these occupations. 
Relating to a similar issue, a Federal Court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as 
working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in 
any profession in that field. For example, Lee's extraordinary ability as a baseball 
player does not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions or professions 
in the baseball industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. TIL 2002). The court noted a consistent history in this 
area. A more recent Federal Court provides a similar interpretation. In Hristov v. Roark, 09-CV-2731, 
2011 WL 4711885 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011), the court stated: 
[T]he AAO accurately noted that the second requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
[section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act] necessitates that the plaintiff"continue [to] work in the 
area of extraordinary ability." It was reasonable for the USCIS to interpret continuing to 
work in one's "area" as actually working in the same profession and not merely the same 
field. 
As the petitioner's proposed occupations are separate and distinct, for her to qualify for this immigrant 
classification, she must demonstrate that she meets at least three criteria relying on evidence from only 
one occupation. The director concluded that the petitioner's achievements as an actress were not 
relevant as she did not propose to continue working as an actress. The petitioner does not challenge that 
2 See http://www.bls.gov/ooh/entertainment-and-sportslproducers-and-directors.htm, accessed on April 21, 2015, 
a copy of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
3 See htlp://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/writers-and-authors.htm, accessed on April21, 2015, a 
copy of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
4 See http://www .bls.gov /ooh/media-and-communication/reporters-correspondents-and-broadcast -news­
analysts.htm, accessed on April21, 2015, a copy of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
5 See http://www .bls.gov/ooh/entertainment-and-sports/actors.htm, accessed on April21, 2015, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
conclusion on appeal and we agree with the reasoning. Accordingly, we will consider the evidence as it 
pertains to her achievements as producer, journalist and children's author. 
B. Translated Evidence 
Any document containing foreign language submitted to [USCIS] shall be accompanied by a full 
English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the 
translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(3). Some of the translation certifications accompanying the petitioner's foreign 
language documents do not meet the regulatory requirements. With the exception of the translation of 
the petitioner's Master's degree, the initial certifications are not dated, they do not identify which 
translations they certify, and the initial certifications as well as the one on appeal are photocopies of the 
same certification. Moreover, that copy refers to letters, yet the copies of this single certification 
supports translations of documents other than letters. Additionally, one of the certifications the 
petitioner submitted in response to the RFE is unsigned. Such documentation is not probative evidence 
that the certification relates to all or any of the translations in this record of proceeding. Regardless, as 
the director did not raise any concerns about the translations, we will consider them below. 
C. Evidentiary Criteria 6 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary dements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that the petitioner is 
the recipient of the prizes or the awards. The clear regulatory language requires that the prizes or the 
awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulation also requires 
the petitioner to submit evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence in the field of endeavor 
rather than simply for participating in or contributing to an event or to a group. The petitioner must 
satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Author 
The petitioner provides multiple instances in which a book she authored received recognition at book 
fairs, festivals and competitions. The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion as she did not produce evidence that she, or the books she 
authored received an actual prize or award. On appeal, the petitioner concedes that her books did not 
win an actual award, but indicates that being considered as a finalist in these venues is recognition of a 
significant contribution to the field. 
6 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner 
claims to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
The regulation governing the prizes and awards criterion requires: "Documentation of the alien's receipt 
of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). To meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, the 
petitioner must be the named award recipient establishing her "receipt" of the award. See Hristov, 2011 
WL 4711885, at *7. Compare 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(iv)(A) (permitting evidence of a nomination for a 
significant national or international award or prize). We will consider the issue of contributions to the 
field below. 
Without any such prizes or awards, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary requirements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the 
published material must be about the petitioner and the contents must relate to the petitioner's work in 
the field under which she seeks classification as an immigrant. The published material must also appear 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Professional or major trade 
publications are intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution and be published in a 
predominant national language. The final requirement is that the petitioner provide each published 
item's title, date, and author and if the published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must 
provide a translation that complies with the requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
The director's primary reason for concluding the petitioner had not satisifed this criterion was a lack of 
evidence demonstrating the published material originated from one of the regulatory required 
publication types; professional or major trade publications or other major media. The director also 
indicated that many of the articles lacked the title, date, and author of the material. The petitioner's 
appellate brief does not discuss any of these identified shortcomings beyond the assertions provided in 
the petitioner's RFE response. Rather, on appeal, the petitioner submits additional evidence consisting 
of two interviews from foreign language sources. The materials the petitioner submits on appeal 
appeared in and in October 2014, after the 
date of filing. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved 
at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Accordingly, the 
October 2014 interviews are not evidence of the petitioner's eligibility in April 2014 when she filed the 
petition. We will address the remaining published material below. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Author 
The petitioner provided an interview conducted in September of 2011 by an online association 
of editors. The regulation requires evidence that the published material appear in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. However, the petitioner relies on information from 
website, which does not indicate that the website is one of the regulatory required publication types. 
While Internet sites are technically accessible nationally and even internationally, we will not presume 
that every Internet site has significant national or international viewership. The act of posting an article 
online does not necessarily constitute publication in major media. The materials relating to 
address the objectives of the association, and do not indicate that this website routinely attracts national 
or international attention. 
The director noted that much of the evidence under the published material criterion submitted in 
response to the RFE postdated the petition's priority date. A petitioner must establish the elements for 
the approval of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12). A petition may not be 
approved if the petitioner was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a 
subsequent time. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The previous published material that 
postdates the petition filing date appeared in 
and i 
Additionally, some of the petitioner's evidence relating to the significance of the publications derives 
from the website Wikipedia. With regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about 
the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited Internet site.7 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael 
Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8 1h Cir. 2008). This evidence relates to the newspaper, 
_ 
Therefore, this 
documentation carries no evidentiary weight within the present proceedings. The evidence that lacks 
the title, date, or author of the published material consists of evidence from 
The petitioner identifies several articles that review her books, rather than published material about the 
petitioner and relating to her work. Specifically, the authors did not discuss the petitioner; instead the 
author critiques the petitioner's book. The book reviews that are not published material about the 
petitioner include the evidence from and 
The petitioner also provided evidence deriving from various blogs, but did not provide 
evidence demonstrating that any of the blogs constitute a form of major media. 
7 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer, "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO 
GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a 
voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. 
The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that 
nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with 
complete, accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found 
here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose 
opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on April 21, 2015, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
Actress 
As discussed above, the petitioner has not responded to the director's conclusion that the petitioner's 
achievements as an actress are not relevant to her eligibility as a producer/writer of extraordinary 
ability. We concur for the reasons discussed above. Regardless, the published material relating to the 
petitioner's work as an actress provides general information relating to French American TV, but is not 
about her, relating to her work in the field from French American TV. The petitioner has not submitted 
evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions in her field. These contributions 
must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The petitioner must 
also demonstrate that her contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the contributions 
are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final requirement is that the 
contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to 
an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some 
meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3r d Cir. 1995) quoted in 
APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of major significance 
connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (h)(3)(v); 
see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-136. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of 
these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner primarily relies on letters provided on her behalf under this criterion. The director 
determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
Executive Producer 
The July 9, 2014 letter from a film-maker, describes how the petitioner is adept as a 
producer, and how the petitioner produces high quality documentaries. explains that she has 
never previously worked with the petitioner and was approached for an objective evaluation. She 
further explains that she reviewed the material the petitioner submitted to the director and performed 
additional research. She does not indicate that she was previously aware of the petitioner's work prior 
to being approached for an evaluation. She indicates that the petitioner makes contributions culturally 
because she educates the French public on American traditions. At issue is not whether the petitioner 
has contributed to her audience's knowledge, but whether she has made contributions "in the field." 
Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the 
field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or customers. See Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this 
criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). In ,the area of production 
indicates the petitioner brings in a more factual specificity to documentaries than is normally 
used in television, resulting in an increase of intensity that leaves the viewer with a more personal 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page9 
approach about the subject. does not however, describe how the petitioner's techniques have 
impacted the production industry, nor does she explain that any portion of the industry has adopted the 
petitioner's methods. As such, she has not provided details demonstrating the petitioner has satisfied 
this criterion's requirements. 
Regarding the letter from Head of Productions at the press agency and broadcast 
company the translator's certification of his letter is a photocopy, is not dated, and does 
not name the document it is certifying other than "all the letters on behalf of [the petitioner]." Further, 
the actual letter bears a date, but the translator did not include that date in the English language 
translation. Within his letter, only describes work the petitioner has performed in 
collaboration with rather than the manner in which she has made original contributions of 
major significance in her field. 
Regarding the letter from a reporter for the French television show the 
translator's certification of this letter is a photocopy, is not dated, and does not name the document it is 
certifying beyond "all the letters on behalf of [the petitioner." Further, the actual letter bears a date, but 
the translator did not include that date in the English language translation. letter 
describes the quality work the petitioner performed for and the importance of that work 
to but does not refer to any of the petitioner's original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
The remaining evidence relating to the petitioner's work as an executive producer consists of a letter 
from Executive Director at describing how the petitioner's 
work helped improve individual projects. However, this letter does not establish that the petitioner has 
made any original contributions of major significance in her field as an executive producer. The 
petitioner also provides evidence relating to documentaries with which she is associated, but did not 
provide evidence demonstrating how her work on these documentaries was an original contribution of 
major significance in the field such that it impacted the field. 
Author 
The record includes an undated letter from Programming Director Assistant and 
Coordinator at the characterizes the petitioner's 
original contributions in the field as assisting in popularizing books targeting teenagers as well as the 
characters the petitioner has developed. However, did not identify the impact of these 
techniques in the petitioner's field as an author. Such claims, without more detail and corroborating 
evidence, do not meet the petitioner's burden of proof in these proceedings. See Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The petitioner provides two letters from the Collections Manager for in 
France. The translation for the first letter is accompanied by a photocopied certification that does not 
identify the translations it is certifying beyond "all the letters on behalf of [the petitioner]," and the 
translation of the letter the petitioner submitted within the RFE response is not accompanied by a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
translator's certification. describes the petitioner's success as an author of youth novels and 
praises her abilities to develop characters. While asserts that the petitioner "brought a new 
style of literature" to French youth novels, he does not explain how the petitioner's work constitutes a 
contribution of major significance in the petitioner's field. 
The letter from a script writer and film director is accompanied by a photocopied 
translator's certification that does not identify the translation it certifies beyond "all the letters on behalf 
of [the petitioner]." recognizes the petitioner's talents within his letter, but does not 
provide the nexus between her talents and the manner in which she has made original contributions of 
major significance in her field. The remaining letters pertaining to the petitioner's work as an author 
focus on her accomplishments, her talents, or contributions to individual projects or companies. 
However, the authors do not provide a description of how the petitioner's authored works, individually 
or as a whole, have made an impact in her field in accordance with the regulation. Further, the 
petitioner's appeal brief does not provide analysis of how any of her work as an author has significantly 
impacted the field. 
Additionally, the petitioner indicates that her books' recognition or awards constitutes a contribution of 
major significance in the field due to the prestige of those who sat in judgment on the awarding juries. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i) is a separate criterion pertaining to awards. While some 
awards might also be relevant to whether the petitioner has made original contributions of major 
significance, the petitioner must demonstrate the relevance of her recognition at competitions to this 
criterion. The record does not contain evidence to establish this relevance, such as evidence that the 
awards recognize books that have influenced the field as opposed to recognizing quality books. 
Journalist 
The letter from Head of Programming for in France, is accompanied 
by a photocopied translator's certification that does not identify the translations it certifies beyond "all 
the letters on behalf of [the petitioner]." confirms the petitioner made contributions to the 
television channel, but does not indicate that her work was a major contribution in the petitioner's field. 
Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the 
field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, at 134 
(D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013) (upholding a fmding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because 
she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
The letter from former Chief Executive Officer of muhiple French television 
channels, is accompanied by a photocopied translator's certification that i does not identify the 
translations it certifies beyond "all the letters on behalf of [the petitioner]." provides the 
petitioner's background in journalism and discusses her work on a documentary, but does not provide 
information relating to how the petitioner's work has contributed to her field as a whole. Also, 
Chief Executive Officer of . a French-language Internet based 
magazine located in the United States, briefly discusses the petitioner's work for his company as well as 
her pursuits in other fields. However, he does not explain how her work for his company is tantamount 
to a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Although the petitioner documented articles that she authored in French language publications, and 
television shows to which she contributed, she did not provide an explanation or evidence 
demonstrating how these articles and television shows have impacted the field such that they are an 
original contribution of major significance in the field. 
Television Host 
letter is accompanied by a photocopied translator's certification that does not 
identify the translations it certifies beyond "all the letters on behalf of [the petitioner]." 
Director of Development at , outlines the petitioner's success as a television host and their 
work history, but he does not indicate that the petitioner's work in the field has resulted in original 
contributions of major significance. 
Actress 
As discussed above, the petitioner has not responded to the director's conclusion that the petitioner's 
achievements as an actress are not relevant to her eligibility as a producer/writer of extraordinary 
ability. We concur for the reasons discussed above. 
Regardless, the petitioner has not demonstrated that her talent as an actress has impacted the field such 
that it constitutes a contribution of major significance to the field. The petitioner provides a list of 
theater plays in which she performed or produced. She also provides a letter from Head 
of the Drama Department at describes how well the 
petitioner has performed for his company acting, writing, and in marketing. states that the 
petitioner has created a Facebook page relating to French speakers in the San Francisco area that 
reaches approximately 2,500 people. The information provides does not reflect that the 
petitioner has made contributions in her field as required by the regulation. 
Summ ary 
The petitioner, and others on her behalf, have described her accomplishments in multiple fields, but 
none have identified any original contributions of major significance in any of the indicated fields. 
Achievements in one's field, however, are not necessarily indicative of original contributions of major 
significance. It is not enough to be skillful and knowledgeable and to have others attest to those talents. 
The petitioner must have demonstrably impacted her field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. The reference letters submitted by 
the petitioner briefly discuss her artistic skills and activities, but they do not provide specific examples 
of how the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field at large or otherwise constitutes 
original contributions of major significance. Moreover, many of the letters conclude that the petitioner 
meets the requirements of the regulations with little explanation of how her achievements have 
influenced the field. By itself, repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), 
affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The 
Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 {BIA 1998); Matter 
of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 218 (BIA 1985)). 
The Board clarified, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. at 1332. If 
testimonial evidenCe lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1136. 
Vague, solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (91h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian 
court reiterated the conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner's] 
contributions in the field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered 
above. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's skills, they cannot form 
the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also 
Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not 
purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. I d. at 795; see also Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). See 
also Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35 (concluding that USCIS' decision to give limited weight to 
uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field was not arbitrary and capricious). While letters 
that are accompanied by sufficient translations and are authored in support of the petition have 
probative value, they are most persuasive when supported by evidence that already existed 
independently in the public sphere. Such independent evidence might include but is not limited to 
letters from independent industry experts with firsthand knowledge of the petitioner's impact in the 
field, media coverage, and citations to the petitioner's work. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and the role's 
matching duties. The petitioner has the responsibility to demonstrate that she actually performed the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
duties listed relating to the leading role. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's impact 
on the organization or the establishment's activities. The petitioner's performance in this role should 
establish whether the role was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. The petitioner 
must demonstrate that the organizations or establishments have a distinguished reputation. While 
neither the regulation nor precedent speak to what constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam­
Webster's online dictionary defmes distinguished as, "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence."8 
Dictionaries are not of themselves evidence, but they may be referred to as aids to the memory and 
understanding of the court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 306 (1893). Therefore, it is the petitioner's 
burden to demonstrate that the organizations or establishments included under this criterion are marked 
by eminence, distinction, excellence, or an equivalent reputation. The petitioner must submit evidence 
satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. The director 
determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The director concluded that while the petitioner documented her role on various projects, the petitioner 
must demonstrate her leading or critical role for an organization or establishment. On appeal, the 
petitioner repeats her assertions made in response to the director's RFE without explaining how this 
evidence demonstrates her leading or critical role for an organization or establishment rather than for a 
specific project. Assuming the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for the group within the 
organization or establishment that produced the single project on which the petitioner worked, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that the project itself enjoys a distinguished reputation. The petitioner's 
appellate brief does not address· this issue. 
Executive Producer 
The petitioner identifies evidence relating to the following entities under this criterion: 
channel: . television channel and a French television documentary series; 
television channel; 
_ 
and 
Some of the evidence relating to these entities is in a foreign language and the translation is a 
photocopy that does not identify the translations it is certifying other than "all the letters on behalf of 
[the petitioner]." The translation, however, is not a translation of a letter. In addition, the petitioner 
relies on evidence that derives from Wikipedia. As discussed above, evidence from Wikipe dia is not 
reliable. See Lamilem Badasa, 540 F.3d at 909. 
The record contains no evidence that the documentary on which the petitioner worked for the 
television channel enjoys a distinguished reputation. The petitioner worked on a documentary for the ' series on The letter from _ a journalist and television reporter who 
works on is also accompanied by a photocopied translator's certification, as noted above. 
indicates that and that the show has been on 
the air for The petitioner also submits evidence demonstrating that the show itself 
has numerous "likes" on Facebook. · Even if we consider this evidence in conjunction with the 
8 See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished, accessed on April21, 2015, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
translated evidence from www .tele.premier.fr as establishing that the show enjoys a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner did not demonstrate her leading or critical role for the 
organization that produces the entire documentary series. Rather, she performed in a leading or critical 
role for the group within the organization that produced this one episode. The petitioner's 
episode reflects far fewer "likes." The petitioner has not demonstrated how this number compares with 
other distinguished French documentaries. 
The petitioner references a documentary entitled _ The 
petitioner asserts that one of the several exhibits under "Tab 18" pertains to this documentary. The 
petitioner did not tab or otherwise number her exhibits and a review of the record reveals no evidence 
that establishes that this documentary enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
Regarding the . the petitioner worked on a documentary titled, for this 
institution. The petitioner provided a portion of the "About Us" page from the institute's website, but 
did not include the portion relating to the institute's impact. She also provided information about the 
institute from Wikipedia, which, as we noted above, is not reliable evidence. The petitioner has not 
provided evidence to establish that this institute enjoys a distinguished reputation. Regarding the 
petitioner's performance for the institute, the petitioner provides the same letter discussed under the 
contributions criterion from Executive Director at the institute. states: "[The 
petitioner] and her production company played an essential role in the final outcome of [the 
documentary]." does not indicate that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role 
for his institute; instead, he addresses the project in which the petitioner was involved. The petitioner 
does not claim that the project itself enjoys a distinguished reputation. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that her role for the documentary qualifies her under this criterion. 
Head of programming at discusses the petitioner's work as a television 
host and her role for a documentary about the preparations in Canada for the visit of 
asserts that the network rebroadcast the documentary based on its appeal 
to viewers and implies that it won an award as "one of the best documentary about horses [in] 2012." 
The petitioner submitted evidence that a festival, in partnership with showed the documentary. 
The record does not contain an award for this documentary. Accordingly, the petitioner did not 
establish the reputation of the documentary. The petitioner did not provide translations for some of the 
materials about although it appears to have a presence on Facebook and followers on Twitter. 
The petitioner submitted googletranslate translations for other information about which does 
not comply with 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(3). Regardless, the materials confirm that is a network 
dedicated to horses, but does not discuss its reputation. 
While the petitioner provided information about the 
_ she did not document her role for this forum or its reputation. Similarly, the petitioner 
provided information about but no evidence from this entity explaining her role for them. The 
petitioner submitted the credits for _ , and 
but no evidence relating to the reputation of these documentaries. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
The petitioner also points to the same letter from referenced under the contributions of major 
significance criterion. The petitioner's appellate brief indicates that ' confirms the lead role 
that [the petitioner] had in her productions." does not, however, explain how the petitioner's 
role was leading or critical for the television channels as a whole and while she praises some of the 
documentaries, she does not provide examples of how they enjoy a distinguished reputation. 
Author 
The petitioner provides articles she authored in She also offers a letter from 
discussed under the contributions criterion. Within • letter, he indicates 
that the petitioner has become an essential part of the publication. He mentions the petitioner's 
versatility and qualifications, but does not specify how she has performed in a leading or critical role for 
Specifically, he does not explain where the petitioner fits within the overall hierarchy 
of the publication or how she has impacted the organization. 
The petitioner also indicates she performed in a leading or critical role for _ 
_ 
The petitioner provides two letters each from the Collections Manager for 
in France, and 
_ 
the owner and founder of Both of 
foreign language letters are accompanied by a photocopied translation certification or lack a translator's 
certification, which is required by the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). discusses the 
petitioner's role collaborating on the authorship of a book published and her 
authorship of other books, including one released after the date of filing. He does not, 
however, explain her role within the hierarchy of the publishing company, the impact of her book on the 
publishing house, such that his letters establish that she performed in a leading or critical role for the 
publishing house. Moreover, some of the information pertaining to the reputation of 
derives from the company and the petitioner translated all of the information about this company 
through googletranslate, which does not comply with 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b )(3). Regardless, the 
information discusses the publishing company's history but does not indicate its overall reputation. 
Within letter, he explains that the petitioner has assisted in identifying new 
and interesting subjects and authored a book that, as of the date of his letter in 2012, had yet to be 
released. He does not, however, specifically explain how she performed in a leading or critical role for 
his organization. The record does reflect that has published numerous guides to living in 
various countries and the petitioner authored the company's guide to living in the United States_ Even if 
we accepted that the petitioner has performed in a critical role for the company's division pertaining to 
living abroad guides, the petitioner must demonstrate that division enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
only indicates that he is proud that is on the committee of national French 
employers that decides who should receive the national press card. However, did not detail 
how many members comprise the committee, nor did he demonstrate the significance of this committee. 
The materials the petitioner submitted pertaining to part of the provides that 
it "is a certified press agency with numerous bureaus and affiliates." This information does not 
demonstrate that the residing abroad guides publishes enjoy a distinguished reputation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
The petitioner also provides a letter from former Consul General for the 
provides praises for the petitioner's work as an author and 
producer, but he does not exQlain her role for a specific organization or establishment. The petitioner 
also identifies the letter from discussed above. Within her letter, �tates that she 
has never worked with the petitioner, although one of the petitioner's books was in the fmals of a 
competition in which served as the director's assistant. However, does not 
describe how the petitioner might have performed in a leading or in a critical role by being a finalist in 
the competition. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
This criterion requires a petitioner to establish eligibility through volume of sales or box office receipts 
as a measure of the petitioner's commercial success in the performing arts. 
The petitioner offers the same evidence submitted to the director within the RFE response. The director 
determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion and the petitioner has not 
rebutted the director's fmdings. The petitioner submits online information for ' and ' 
First, authoring books does not fall under the performing arts as required by the regulation at 8 C.P. R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(x). Regardless, even if we were to consider the evidence as comparable evidence. 
pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4), the petitioner has not provided evidence that is comparable to the 
evidence required under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). Specifically, the release date for 
postdates the petition filing date, which the director noted in the decision. A petitioner must establish 
the elements for the approval of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ), (12). A 
petition may not be approved if the petitioner was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to 
become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The evidence 
relating to ' is in a foreign language and is not accompanied by the translation into 
English nor is the regulatory required translator's certification part of the record. Moreover, it is not 
apparent from a review of the foreign language documents that they specify actual sales numbers rather 
than just the retail price. Such evidence does not comply with the terms of 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3) and 
will not serve as probative evidence. Further, the petitioner did not offer any additional specifics within 
the appeal, nor did she provide evidence for other commercially successful book sales to which we 
could compare to her book sales. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
D. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor, " and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F. R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.9 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner' s burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA 
§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 4q<) (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).