dismissed EB-1A Case: Public Policy

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-E-
MOTION OF AAO DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 11, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-140 , IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an individual who focuses on "creativity as it relates to public policy," seeks 
classification as a person "of extraordinary ability. " See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
§ 203(b )(1 )(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A). The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the 
petition. The Petitioner appealed the denial to this office and we dismissed the appeal. The matter is 
now before us on a motion to reconsider. The motion will be denied. 
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. Id. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) 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 included a statement indicating if the 
validity of our January 26, 2015, decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding. 
Regardless, the Petitioner has not otherwise shown his eligibility for the classification sought. 
Accordingly , we reaffirm our prior decision. 
In support of his motion, the Petitioner submits a brief as well as copies of the following previously 
provided evidence: (1) a book review published in in 2002 for the Petitioner's book, 
_ (2) a book review published in 
in 1994 for the Petitioner's book, and 
(3) a letter from the New York to the 
, Nigeria dated 2004 regarding the Sister City relationship 
between 
The Petitioner asserts that we erred in our determination that the evidence submitted does not meet 
the criteria set forth under the regulations at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (v), and (viii). He does not 
cite legal authority in support of his position, but he does state the reasons he disagrees with our 
application of the law. We address the Petitioner's arguments made on motion below. 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-E-
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the fieldfor which class(fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner stated he met the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) when he 
submitted a review of his book, in the 
as well as a review of his book, 
In our dismissal , we stated that the Petitioner had not met this criterion because 
he did not show ( 1) that the book reviews were about him, and (2) that the publications in which they 
appeared are professional, major trade publications, or other major media. 
On motion, the Petitioner states that both reviews are about him because a book is the creation of its 
author, and a book review is therefore an assessment of its author's intellectual merit. An article 
about a petitioner's work is not necessarily about the petitioner himself. See generally Negro­
Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820.-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that 
articles about a show are not about the actor). We included this citation in our previous decision and 
the Petitioner offers no contrary legal authority on motion. See 8 C.F.R § 1 03.5(a)(3) (requiring 
legal authority in support of a motion to reconsider). While a book review may both review a book 
and be about the author, we consider each book review on a case-by-case basis. The portion of the 
review the Petitioner quotes indicates that the review is about the book. It mentions the Petitioner 
only in relation to the fact that he wrote the book. It is insufficient that the published material 
merely mentions the Petitioner. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii): see Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 
F.Supp.2d 535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 
Regarding review of ~ 
_ we specifically noted in our dismissal that, other than the Petitioner's former 
employment as the Director of Studies at the the 
review included no other information about him. On motion, the Petitioner indicates that the review 
is about his personal vision for the transformation of the public sector when it stated: "The author's 
major focus is on positive identification , systematic development and fuller utilization of the creative 
imagination of Nigeria's public officers . .. With public servants and all those who have a stake in 
enhanced public service delivery in mind, [the Petitioner] has provided a tool to increase their 
productivity." Upon review, we reaffirm that this review is about the book and referred to the 
Petitioner as its author only in the context of describing the contents of the book itself. 
The review in included a reference to the acknowledgements section of the book where the 
Petitioner discussed the contributions of his family to his growth. It also described the book as the 
Petitioner's "labor of love," and explained that the Petitioner planned three more volumes. Even 
accepting that this review is about the Petitioner, relating to his work, the Petitioner must establish 
that the review appeared in a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
On motion, the Petitioner indicates that should both 
be considered professional or major trade publications or other maJOr media. The Petitioner 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-E-
indicates that the ~ _ is an academic journal founded in that 
provides information regarding forthcoming African publications. Although this information 
suggests that journal is a professional publication, the article published in 
does not meet the requirements of this criterion because it is not about the Petitioner, as 
explained above. 
Regarding we found in our dismissal that the Petitioner had not demonstrated it qualifies as a 
professional or major trade publication, specifically citing the lack of evidence regarding the 
publication's circulation or distribution data, or any other information to indicate its significance. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not address these issues, but indicates that qualifies as such a 
publication by virtue of the organization that publishes it. The Petitioner refers to as the 
journal of the stating: "I submit that the authority and 
global prestige of the as a leading professional organization in the 
field of creativity makes the association's journal a major media." Regarding the 
authority and global prestige, he refers us to the "About us" page from the organization's website at 
which we have reviewed. 1 However, the quote on 
which the Petitioner relies does not speak to the Association's authority or prestige. The quote 
states, in part, that the "is the national organization of professionals in the field of creativity . 
Through its programs and services, it offers individuals and organizations opportunities for learning, 
professional development and networking." Even if the website did address this issue, however, 
USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, 2007 
WL 9229758, *7 (C. D. CA 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9111 Cir. 2009) (concluding that we did not 
have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status). As a 
result, the Petitioner has not provided independent, objective evidence that demonstrates the 
organization's authority or prestige. 
In addition, the Petitioner is not persuasive that the authority or prestige of a publishing organization 
is sufficient to establish that one of its publications is a professional or major trade publication or 
other major media. The reputation of the issuing organization is an important factor to consider in 
evaluating a publication. However, an authoritative and prestigious organization may issue 
publications that do not fit these criteria. It remains that the Petitioner has not documented the 
distribution or circulation of the publications . 
Accordingly, we reaffirm our previous finding that the Petitioner has not presented documentation of 
published material about himself in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to his work in the field for which classification is sought. 
1 
See . accessed September 8, 2015 and incorporated into the record of 
proceeding. 
3 
~~ --~~---~------
(b)(6)
Matter of E-E-
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific , scholarly , artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the .field. 
The Petitioner originally provided information about his book publications and letters of 
recommendation in support of this criterion. In our dismissal , we found that the evidence presented 
did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's works are of major significance in the field. 
On motion, the Petitioner states: "Original discoveries and authorship of critically acclaimed and 
widely distributed books qualify me as having met the criterion of original scholarly contributions of 
major significance." However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the wide distribution of his 
books. Going on record without suppmting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter o.fSo.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter a/Treasure Craft ofCalifornia , 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
While the Petitioner has provided the previously-cited book reviews, he has not shown that 
publishing books which receive positive reviews at the time of publication is indicative of a 
contribution of major significance in the field once disseminated in the field. The evidentiary 
requirements of this criterion necessitate that the Petitioner demonstrate that his works have 
constituted contributions of major significance in the field as a whole. Both book reviews , though 
favorable, predate the filing of the petition by at least ten years. The Petitioner has not offered 
evidence that the reviewed books have had an impact on the field after the favorable reviews. 
Regarding the overall impact of his contributions, the Petitioner references the "unassailable 
expertise and integrity of the world's best known creativity scholars ... who adjudge my ideas and 
contributions in the field of creativity as original, visionary, groundbreaking, and suggesting creative 
paths for the human condition." The Petitioner provided reference letters from several individuals 
who also work in the field of creativity studies. However , the Petitioner does not address on motion 
our concerns that the letters were conclusory and did not indicate a wide impact in the field. To 
meet this criterion, the contributions and their major significance must have already been realized 
rather than being potential or future. 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). In this case, the recommendation letters in the record 
speak highly of the Petitioner and his work, but they do not include examples of realized 
significance. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not presented evidence of his original scientific , scholarly , artistic , 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishment s that have a distinguish ed reputation . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner asserted on appeal that he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation when: (1) he facilitated collaborations between 
the and The 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-E-
t and between and (2) he 
facilitated the establishment of a Sister City relationship between New York and 
Nigeria; (3) the Institute of African Studies, requested his assistance in 
rebuilding the school; ( 4) The applauded the Petitioner's 
activities; and (5) accepted the Petitioner 's request for support in 
the African Mass Creativity initiative. In the dismissal, we held that the evidence presented for the 
Petitioner's activities in each of these areas was not sufficient because it did not provide details 
regarding what the Petitioner actually did in the above roles. On motion, the Petitioner discusses 
only the first three roles. We address those three roles below and reaffirm here our previous 
conclusion that the record does not include details pertaining to the Petitioner's duties for and impact 
on and 
With regard to facilitating the memorandum of understanding between and the 
Petitioner refers to the letter requesting that he "set in motion the machinery for dialogue" between 
the two organizations. He then cites the fact that a memorandum of understanding was signed in 
2011 by President and the Director General of as evidence that he was 
effective in this role. However, as we noted in the dismissal, the Petitioner has not offered 
information that explains what he did to facilitate the dialogue between the two institutions. For 
example, the record does not show whether his duties were limited to providing contact information 
or whether he was truly instrumental in negotiating the signing of the memorandum. 
Even if the Petitioner could claim primary responsibility for the signing of the memorandum of 
understanding, however, he has not demonstrated that this level of involvement would mean he 
played a leading or critical role for the organizations involved. In the overall scheme of the activities 
of both institutions, the record does not reflect what, if any, significance this memorandum of 
understanding has on either party. The record does not include materials confirming that any 
concrete developments resulted from the memorandum. Accordingly , the Petitioner has not 
provided evidence to establish that the facilitator of such a memorandum would have played a 
leading or critical role for either organization as a whole, given the breadth and scope of both 
institutions' activities. 
Similarly, the Petitioner has not shown that his role in facilitating sister-city status between 
and ~ satisfies the requirements of this criterion. As noted in our dismissal, the Petitioner has 
not provided materials to explain what he did to facilitate the cities' relationship . As evidence, the 
Petitioner submitted a 2004 letter from the Mayor of to the Minister of in which the 
Mayor indicates he is appreciative of the Petitioner 's efforts and states that he is "anticipating that 
through ongoing communications, facilitated by (the Petitioner], the Sister City 
organizing committee and Sister City organizers of will develop mutually 
agreeable agenda and itinerary ... " The letter does not include details regarding the Petitioner's 
involvement. In addition, the record does not contain information post-2004 to indicate that the 
sister-city relationship did, in fact, have a positive impact for either city. 
As a result, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his involvement with the sister-city relationship 
amounts to playing a leading or critical role in either city's operations. The Petitioner does not 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-E-
indicate that his role for either city ever extended beyond the facilitation of the sister-city status. The 
evidence in the record also does not indicate any concrete results of the sister-city relationship. As a 
result, the Petitioner has not shown that the facilitator of such a status would constitute a leading or 
critical role for either of these large cities. 
Lastly, the Petitioner indicates that he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation when the 
requested his assistance in rebuilding the school. The Petitioner provided a 2006 letter 
from the Director of the expressing pleasure at learning that the 
Petitioner and his American and Canadian colleagues agreed to participate in continental 
revitalization initiatives at the University. As with the letter from the Mayor of the 
Petitioner does not offer any materials post-2006 to indicate any further action was taken after 
receiving this initial letter from the Director of the The Petitioner has 
not provided any information regarding how he furthered the goals of the 
Without evidence to show what the Petitioner accomplished and the impact of any accomplishments, 
he has not demonstrated that he played a leading or critical role for the 
The motion will be denied 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, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The motion is denied. 
Cite as Matter o.fE-E-, ID# 13163 (AAO Sept. 11, 2015)