dismissed EB-1A Case: Psychology

(b)(6)
DATE: AUG 1 2 2015 
rN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary : 
FILE#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service: 
Admini strative Appea ls Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N. W ., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5 . 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-2908) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form 1-2908 web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements . Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you , 
~e~ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. We subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion 
to reopen. We will reopen the matter on motion and reaffirm our prior decision. 
I. Motion to Reopen 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) informs the public of the filing requirements for a 
motion and provides, in pertinent part, that a motion must be: "Accompanied by a statement about 
whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial 
proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." 
In the instant motion, the petitioner has not submitted a statement indicating if the validity of our 
March 23, 2015 unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) requires that "[a] motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed." Regardless, the petitioner has not otherwise shown her eligibility 
for the petition. Accordingly, we reaffirm our prior decision. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for 
reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that our original 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of 
the original decision based on the previous factual record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which 
seeks a new hearing based on new or previously unavailable evidence. Compare 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
In support of her motion, the petitioner has submitted: (1) a March 30, 2015 letter from 
, a licensed clinical psychologist; (2) a March 29, 2014 letter from 
time faculty, Departments of Psychology and Marriage and Family Therapy, 
(3) an undated letter from Operations Director, 
, part­
University; 
; (4) a July 30, 2012 email from ===----' 
a' 1n 
Southern California; ( 5) online printouts from website, ~ ( 6) two partial copies 
of the petitioner's articles entitled " and ' 
posted on website, (7) the petitioner's article entitled 
posted on website; (8) an online printout from a library's 
website announcing a workshop by the petitioner; (9) a February 4, 2013 letter from 
Core Faculty Counseling Psychology, University -
(10) foreign language documents that lack certified English translations; (11) ========', 
relating to the petitioner's book, 
; (12) online printouts relating to the petitioner's app, 
(13) a May 17, 2013 article by entitled 
quotes the petitioner; (14) 
an online printout from 
pod cast in 2013; (15) an online printout from the radio show 
' that 
the petitioner as a guest on a 
listing the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
petitioner as a guest; ( 16) an October 1 7, 2014 article entitled · 
posted on 
of the petitioner's appearance on a 
she, as a Dream Expert, meets the 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (v), (vi) and (viii). 
that quotes the petitioner; and ( 1 7) a screenshot 
television show. On motion, the petitioner asserts that 
criteria set forth under the regulations at 8 C.F .R. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought. which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she is a member of ; has 
an Internet Movie Database (IMDB) profile and presented at the 
. The petitioner has not shmvn that she meets this criterion. 
First, as discussed in our March 23, 2015 decision, the petitioner has not shovm that requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts, 
as required by the plain language of the criterion. On motion, the petitioner resubmits an undated 
letter from and a July 2012 email from In our previous decision, 
we noted that the submitted evidence does not provide the requirements for membership in 
The petitioner has not addressed that concern on motion. We reaffirm that neither 
nor explains what the requirements are to become a member of or assert that 
recognized national or international experts evaluate the eligibility of prospective members. 
On motion, the petitioner also submits online printouts from website, including a picture of 
the petitioner and other individuals who participated in an conference and the petitioner's 
biography. None of the newly submitted evidence relates to membership requirements or 
establishes that the requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. The record does not contain constitution or 
bylaws setting forth the membership requirements for the organization. As discussed in our previous 
decision, the petitioner's involvement in the relates to the leading or critical role criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which we discuss below. At issue for this criterion, however, is not the 
petitioner's role for the , but her membership status and whether requires outstanding 
achievements of its members. The record lacks evidence relating to membership 
requirements, and lacks evidence showing that "recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields" judge the "outstanding achievements" of members. As such, the 
petitioner has not shown that her membership meets this criterion. 
Second, as discussed in our previous decision, the petitioner has not shown that is an 
association that accepts members. On motion, the petitioner has not submitted additional evidence 
relating to her association with the Instead, she states that includes her profile in its 
database because she appeared on a show. The petitioner further states that the 
database "can only be added by established TV networks and movie production companies." The 
petitioner made the same assertions on appeal, which we concluded do not establish that the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
petitioner is a "member" of the Rather, the evidence shows that is an online database 
that provides information on individuals who have received credit for appearing on television shows, 
movies and other productions. In this case, the petitioner received credit for her appearance on a 
December 2013 episode of the television show as a dream analyst. The record, 
however, lacks evidence showing that the accepts members. In addition, even if the 
petitioner has shown that she is a member of the she has not shown that reqmres 
"outstanding achievements" of the individuals whose information that it posts, or that the 
"outstanding achievements" are judged by "recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields." As such, the petitioner has not shown that her profile meets this 
criterion. Instead, because it relates to an appearance on this information is relevant to 
the published material criterion, which the petitioner meets. 
Third, on motion, the petitioner asserts that her involvement with the meets this criterion. 
The petitioner submits two foreign language documents and states that they show the invited 
her to present at a event and featured her in its magazine. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(3) provides: "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." As the record lacks certificated English translations for the 
documents, the foreign language documents have minimal evidentiary value. In addition, the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that she is a "member" of the as required by 
the plain language of this criterion, or that the requires outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. As such, the petitioner has not 
shown that her involvement with the meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of her membership in associations in 
the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
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 class?fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204. 5(h)(3 )(iii). 
On motion, the petitioner submits an October 17, 2014 miicle entitled ' 
which quotes the petitioner's opinions on dream interpretation. This 
evidence postdates the filing of the petition. Regardless, we previously concluded in our appellate 
decision that the petitioner met this criterion. The petitioner appeared on the television show 
as a dream analyst in December 2013 and the show was broadcasted on the 
television channel, which constitutes "major media." Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted 
published material about her in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
relating to her work in the field for which classification is sought. The petitioner has met this 
criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). · 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic. or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she has authored 
released a new version of the 
and presented seminars and workshops at the 
Public Library and conferences. The petitioner has not met this 
criterion. 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 v. Beers, 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). 
First, the petitioner has not shown what impact her book has had in the field of psychology. On 
motion, the petitioner submits an online printout from The petitioner states that the 
printout shows that her book "has been well received not only by the dream psychology community, 
but also by the general public." The evidence in the record does not support the petitioner's 
assertion. Neither the printout nor any other evidence in the record establishes how many copies of 
her 2013 books have been sold. The printout shows that her book has received three reviews and has 
a five-star aggregate review score. This evidence shows that three reviewers liked the petitioner's 
book. The limited number of reviews from unidentified individuals, however, does not establish 
what impact, if any, the book has had on the field of psychology as a whole. 
On motion, the petitioner submits two reference letters. The letter from states that the 
petitioner's book "offers an excellent overview of dream psychology, helping readers gain [a] better 
understanding of themselves by working with their own dreams, and significantly enhancing their 
own wellbeing." The letter further states that "[t]hrough her popular books and seminars, [the 
petitioner] positively impacts the life of many people, providing them with the tools to work with 
their own dreams" and that her "innovative work in the field of dream psychology has raised the bar 
for other experts in the field." The letter from states that the petitioner's book was a 
"best-sell[er]" and that she "is making a positive difference in people's lives with her continuing 
contributions, and innovative work." Merely 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), G:ffd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 
WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). The reference letters in the record are conclusory, and do not include 
any specific evidence on what the petitioner has done that is either original, such that she is the first 
person or one of the first people to have done it, or evidence shoVIring that the petitioner's work 
constitutes contributions of major significance in the field, such that her work fundamentally 
changed or significantly advanced the field as a whole. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General ofthe United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 
1990); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding our decision to give minimal weight 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
to vague, solicited letters from colleagues or associates that do not provide details on contributions 
of major significance in the field). 
Neither letter nor any other evidence in the record includes evidence showing how 
many copies of her book the petitioner has sold or evidence showing that her book is a best-seller. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter o.f Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that the release of a new version of her app in February 20 15, 
over a year after she filed her petition in January 2014, establishes that she meets this criterion. As 
discussed in our previous decision, it is well established that the petitioner must demonstrate 
eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). The petitioner cannot secure a priority date 
based on the anticipation of a future event at a level consistent with contributions of major 
significance. See Matter ofWing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977); Matter 
o,[Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (adopting Matter o[Bardouille, 18 I&N 
Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the proposition that USC IS cannot "consider facts that come into being 
only subsequent to the filing of a petition.") As such, the release of her app in March 2014 or the 
release of a new version ofthe app in February 2015 does not establish that she meets this criterion. 
In addition, the evidence in the record does not show that her app has had an impact in the field 
consistent with a finding of "major significance." states that the new version of the 
petitioner's app is "particularly encouraging" because "it enables users to help each other, and dream 
of better answers together." asserts that the app "enables dreamers to connect on a 
global scale, making a positive impact on people's lives by encouraging the exploration of 
unconscious patterns and themes embedded in dreams." These reference letters describe the app and 
its positive attributes, but they do not provide specific evidence showing that the impact of the app 
on the field of psychology is at a level consistent with a contribution of "major significance" in the 
field. The record lacks information on how many people in the field have used or been influenced 
by the app. 
Finally, as discussed in our previous decision, the petitioner has not shown what impact her public 
engagements have had in the field. On motion, the petitioner submits online printouts from 
Public Library and the . and a February 4, 2013 letter from showing 
that the petitioner has offered workshops and seminars, and made presentations on dream 
interpretation. This evidence shows that the petitioner has disseminated her work in the field and to 
the general public. The evidence does not establish what impact her work has had in the field after 
its dissemination. To meet this criterion, the petitioner must demonstrate that the impact of her work 
is such that her work fundamentally changed or significantly advanced the field of psychology. 
Without evidence of impact, the petitioner has not shown that her public engagements constitute 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDElVT DECISION 
Page 7 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of her original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she has authored articles 
posted on website. As supporting evidence, the petitioner resubmits two incomplete 
articles entitled and and 
one complete article entitled ' The petitioner has not met this criterion. 
The petitioner has not shown that is a professional or major trade publication or other 
major media. On appeal, the petitioner asserted that constituted "other media." As stated 
in our prior decision, to meet this criterion, the petitioner must demonstrate through her evidence 
that is "other major media." (Emphasis added.) On motion, the petitioner does not 
address whether is major media. We reaffirm our prior conclusion that the record lacks 
information relating to or its website, such as its reach, readership or distribution, that 
shows that it constitutes "other major media." 
In addition, the petitioner has not shown that her articles constitute scholarly articles. The petitioner 
has previously submitted ' which consists of five paragraphs, and "A 
· which consists of four paragraphs. On motion, the petitioner submits an 
incomplete copy of · " showing that it has at least two 
paragraphs. As noted in our previous decision, the petitioner's articles lack citations, charts or 
graphs that usually accompany scholarly articles. In addition, the petitioner has not submitted 
evidence showing that her articles have been subjected to peer-review or edited by an editor. Unlike 
scholarly articles, the petitioner's articles constitute her personal opinions on specific topics that 
have not been reviewed, verified or substantiated by anyone else in the field. The petitioner submits 
evidence showing that ' has garnered 131 tweets. The petitioner has not 
explained the significance of this information or shown that the number of tweets is relevant 
evidence under this criterion. In the alternative, the petitioner has not demonstrated that other 
experts in the field consider her articles scholarly, such as but not limited to, citation of her articles 
in their own scholarly work. The petitioner's statement on motion does not discuss what makes her 
articles scholarly. Accordingly, the petitioner has not shown that her articles constitute scholarly 
articles. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of her authorship of scholarly articles in the 
field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The petitioner has not met 
this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she has played critical roles for 
the She states that she was a member of the organizing committee for the 
in 2011 and has held two research seminars at conferences. As supporting 
evidence, the petitioner resubmits an undated letter from and a July 2012 email from 
The petitioner had previously submitted the same evidence in support of her 
petition. The petitioner has not met this criterion. 
First, as discussed in our previous decision, undated email does not establish that 
the petitioner has performed either a leading or critical role for the letter 
states that the petitioner "presented an outstanding symposium" at the 
and that the presentation was well received. further states that petitioner 
"has an extraordinary ability to work with people ' s dreams, and is also a very inspiring dream 
speaker." The letter does not provide information on the petitioner's association with the 
other than being one of its presenters at its regional conference. The letter does not discuss the 
petitioner's title or her duties in the which relate to whether the petitioner has performed a 
leading role for the . The letter also does not discuss the petitioner 's impact in the as a 
whole, which relates to whether the petitioner has performed a critical role for the As such, 
the letter does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Second, we considered email in our previous decision, and concluded that the 
email did not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. As noted, although 
states in her email that the petitioner had "an active part" in the 2011 conference's organizing 
committee, she does not provide any specific information relating to the petitioner's duties, title or 
impact on the organizing committee. primarily conclusory assertions provide 
insufficient detail. See 17 56, Inc., 7 45 F. Supp. at 17. Moreover, the petitioner has not shown that 
the organization committee constitutes an organization or establishment that has a 
distinguished reputation. As such, the email does not establish that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
Third, although the record shows that the petitioner has presented at the 
the petitioner has not shown that being one of the 20 presenters 
at a regional conference constitutes her performing either a leading or a critical role for the or 
any other organization. On motion, the petitioner asserts that she "has held two major research 
seminars at conferences." She submits online printouts from website that provide 
information on the petitioner's presentation and biographic information. None of the online 
printouts, however, establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. As discussed in our previous 
decision, the petitioner has not presented evidence showing that her title and duties within the 
are indicative of her leading role, or evidence showing that her impact on the is indicative of 
her critical role. In addition, the record lacks evidence show-ing that the has a distinguished 
reputation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence that she has performed in a leading or critical 
role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary 's occupation , the petitioner may 
submit comparable evidence to establish the bene_ficiary 's eligibility . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4). 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that her status as a parent of a U.S. citizen child constitutes 
qualifying comparable. As discussed in our previous decision, to show the applicability of this 
regulation, the petitioner must explain how the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to her occupation, specify what evidence in the record 
constitutes comparable evidence, and describe how the evidence is comparable to the evidence 
required under the ten criteria. The petitioner has not established how her parental status relates or is 
comparable to any of the ten criteria under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(i)-(x). When 
reviewing the petitioner 's motion, we must follow the guidelines set forth in the Act, regulations and 
case law, which do not allow us to consider the petitioner's parental status as relevant to whether she 
enjoys sustained national or international acclaim in her field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the ten criteria do not readily apply to her occupation or shown that she has 
submitted evidence that is comparable to that required under the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
II. Conclusion 
In most administrative immigration proceedings, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that she is eligible for the benefit sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). 
The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. ld. at 376. In this 
case, the petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that she. is eligible for the 
exclusive classification sought. 
Although the petitioner has submitted new evidence in support of a motion to reopen, she has not 
shown that she meets the eligibility for the classification sought. Therefore, we affirm our previous 
decision denying her petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. Accordingly, the petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion is granted, our March 23, 2015 decision is affirmed, and the petition remains 
denied.