dismissed EB-1A Case: Public Policy

(b)(6)
DATE: 
JAN 2 6 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS 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 Jaw 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.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
/'!./???' . r· �� 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis. gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 the initial cover letter, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability in "the field of creativity as it relates to public policy," 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. The petitioner explains in the initial cover letter dated February 20, 2013: 
Creativity encompasses the development and application of useful new ideas to solve 
practical economic, social, political or environmental problems while Public Policy 
brings together and synthesizes the concepts and theories of many social science 
fields (including economics, sociology, political science, program evaluation, policy 
analysis, and public management) and applies those concepts and theories to 
problems of governance, public administration and management. 
The petitioner obtained his Ph.D. in rural sociology.1 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 asserts that he meets the criterion under the regulations at 8 C.P. R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v), (vi) and (viii). On November 25, 2014, we issued a notice of intent to 
dismiss (NOID ), expressing concern that the petitioner had misrepresented that he still worked for 
the � 
. 
. Specifically, we noted that 
confirmed that he no longer worked there and . --cr� website listed his affiliation as "Pre-
Prep Dining Assistant, Dining Serv-Pre-Prep (0489). " On December 29, 2014, the petitioner filed a 
response to our NOID, asserting that any reference from him or his counsel of his continuing 
employment with the was inadvertently made. Significantly, the petitioner notes that on the 
Form G-325A Biographic Information accompanying his Form I-485, Application to Register 
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, which he signed on January 25, 2013, he indicated that his 
employment with ended in August 2012. In addition, the petitioner explains that he 
currently holds a "part-time position as Pre-Prep Assistant in the " 
temporarily to supplement his family income. In light of the petitioner's response to the NOID, we 
will not make a finding of material misrepresentation. 
1 The petitioner's degree is a valid means of determining the petitioner's field. Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1230 
(E.D. Mich. 1994) (applying the Department of Labor regulation defining science as any field for which colleges and 
universities commonly offer specialized courses leading to a degree under the extraordinary ability cJassification). While 
the record reflects that at least a few universities have a department or institute dedicated to Creativity Studies, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated the subject is commonly offered. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
Notwithstanding this finding, for the reasons discussed below, we agree with the director that the 
petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.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.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he is 
one of the small percentage who is at the very top in the field of endeavor, and that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
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 101st 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 alien's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the alien'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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C. P.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. 2010) 
(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. 20 11) (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 not 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. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Visa 
While U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. 
It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co. 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). We are not required to approve applications or 
petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may 
have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 
1988). We need not treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant 
petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of 
a service center as the law is clear that an agency is not bound to follow an earlier determination as 
to a visa applicant where that initial determination was based on a misapplication of the law. Clara 
Fashion, Inc. v. Holder, 11 CIV. 889 PAE, 2012 WL 352309 *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012); Royal 
Siam v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 148 (1st Cir. 2007); Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172, 177 (D. 
Mass. 2000) (Dkt. 10); Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 800, 803 (E.D. La. 
1999), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 819 (2001). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(3), the petitioner, as initial evidence, may present 
evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, 
the petitioner has not asserted or shown through his evidence that he is the recipient of a major, 
internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, as initial 
evidence, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations 
at 8 C.F. R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
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). 
For the first time on appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because: (1) he received 
the: which recognized the petitioner's 
"successful presentations over the years at the annual 
conference; (2) the 
_ 
appointed the petitioner as its 
(3) the government of Nigeria and the . have "adopted" the 
petitioner's book; and (4) the government of Nigeria has declared September 14 as the National Day 
of Creativity. As the petitioner did not raise these claims before the director, including in response 
to the director's request for evidence that advised the petitioner had not presented evidence relevant 
to this claim, the director did not err in declining to discuss this criterion. Regardless, the petitioner 
has not established that he meets this criterion on appeal. 
First, the petitioner did not submit primary evidence of his ...., or evidence that 
primary and secondary evidence does not exist or is unavailable. Thus, pursuant to 8 C.F. R. 
§ 103. 2(b )(2), the petitioner may not rely on a letter or even an affidavit. Further, the petitioner has 
not shown that a is a qualifying award under the criterion. According to a 
2008 letter from since 1995, the petitioner has 
"made several successful presentations at the annual _ conferences,] in recognition of which he 
received the Neither Mr. nor any 
other evidence in the record indicates that the award was in recognition of the petitioner's excellence 
in the field. Rather, according to Mr. the award was in recognition of the petitioner's 
"successful presentations" at conferences. Mr. has not provided information in his letter 
explaining what constitutes a successful presentation, or evidence establishing that the petitioner's 
successful presentations demonstrate his excellence in the field. 
Moreover, the petitioner has not provided evidence showing that the award is nationally or 
internationally recognized, or that individuals and/or entities not associated with the know 
about the award. Mr. does not assert that the is nationally or 
2 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 
Page 6 
internationally recognized or provide examples of such recognition. Regardless, promotional 
evidence from the issuing entity has minimal evidentiary value. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-
5105 SJO 10 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007), aff'd, 31 7 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that we 
did not have to rely on the promotional assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's 
status as major media). The petitioner has not supported the self-promotional evidence with more 
independent evidence, such as, but not limited to, independent journalistic coverage of the selections 
for the award in any year in a professional publication, a major trade publication, a nationally or 
internationally circulated publication, or in major media. 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that his appointment as a 
_ 
Nigeria constitutes an award or prize, or, assuming that it is an award or prize, that it is qualifying 
under the criterion. In his November 2005 letter, 
• 
Secretary, _ : of Nigeria, invites the petitioner to visit the organization's headquarters in 
Nigeria to deliver a lecture on creativity and innovation related topics. The letter further states that 
when the petitioner visits the organization's headquarters, it intends to appoint him as it� 
The petitioner has submitted a picture taken in front of a sign of "Headquarters, 
_ 
Nigeria." The petitioner has not, however, submitted evidence that the • of Nigeria has 
actually appointed him a Moreover, neither Mr. nor any other evidence in the 
record establishes that the organization offers the petitioner the appointment in recognition of his 
excellence in the field of endeavor. Mr. letter does not provide specific information relating 
to why the organization is offering the petitioner the appointment. In addition, the petitioner has not 
shown that an appointment of a of this organization constitutes an award or prize. The 
petitioner has also not submitted any evidence showing that the appointment is recognized by any 
individual or entity not associated with the organization. See Braga, No. CV 06-5105 SJO at 10. 
Third, the petitioner has not shown that a decision by the government of Nigeria and the 
� 
of Nigeria to adopt the petitioner's book constitute an award or prize. As supporting evidence that 
he meets this criterion based on the "adopt[ion]" of his book, the petitioner points to the forward in 
his book 1 
_ _ 
materials relating to the 
launch and purchase of the petitioner's book, and a letter from the 
_ 
_ indicating 
that the petitioner's "activities has [sic] been incorporated in Article 5, Section I (ii) Page 3, of our 
enabling constitution approved by the ' _ ., None of the evidence to 
which the petitioner points shows that the government of Nigeria or the l • of Nigeria has 
given him any award or prize, or that the award or prize is nationally or internationally recognized. 
While the government of Nigeria and the • of Nigeria have found value and interest in 
the petitioner's books and/or ideas, this awareness is not evidence of a prize or award in recognition 
of the petitioner's excellence in the field. 
Fourth, on appeal, the petitioner has not pointed to any evidence in the record establishing that the 
declaration of is associated with the petitioner 
or his work. The petitioner asserts on appeal that the National Day of Creativity is "an event which 
[the petitioner's] work touched off." The petitioner, however, has pointed to no evidence in the 
record in support of this claim. Nor has the petitioner provided evidence showing a causal 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
connection between his work and the declaration of Nigeria's National Day of Creativity. In fact, 
the petitioner did not provide any evidence about the day other than a website address. A review of 
that address, http:U� _. 
___ ___ 
, reveals that the Nigerian government selected the date "because it was the 
day Nigeria's membership of the 
came into force.''3 Similarly, the other website the petitioner references, 
http:// • 
(, provides: "Highlights of the programm e include an exhibition of 
various arts and craf_t§, cultural performances, a er resentations by the Directors-General of the 
- ·-------- _ _____ ___ . _ _ 
� _ . _ 
on censorship and 
distribution framework of Nigerian films and anti-piracy laws in Nigeria." 4 This information reveals 
that Nigeria's National Day of Creativity relates to artistic creativity rather than the petitioner's field 
of sociology or even his focus on creativity as it relates to public policy. Moreover, assuming 
arguendo that the petitioner's work resulted in Nigeria declaring a National Day of Creativity, the 
petitioner has not shown how the declaration constitutes his receipt of an award or prize for 
excellence in the field, as required by the plain language of the criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of his receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(i). 
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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204. 5(h)(3)(iii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because of published reviews of his 
books. He submits evidence that the published a review of his 
book published a review of 
his book The petitioner has not shown that he meets this 
criterion. 
First, the petitioner has not shown that reviews of his written works constitute materials about the 
petitioner, relating to his work. Rather, book reviews are about the books, not their authors. Indeed, 
other than stating the petitioner's former employment as the Director of Studies at the 
- -- ------ - -- �� -----
1.....1 _. ' ... • � 
� - � ... ... - - .. 
review 
provides no other information about the petitioner. Similarly, the . review is about the 
petitioner's book and includes minimal to no information about the petitioner. The petitioner has not 
shown that these book reviews constitute materials about him, as required under the criterion. See 
3 See http:Uwww .. ------..,-------
accessed January 23, 2015 and incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
4 See htt : , accessed January 23, 2015 and incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
generally Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-EC R-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a 
finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that the . 
_ 
constitutes a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. On a peal, citing the website at 
http:// www the petitioner states that the. , 
is "an academic journal."' According to the information posted on the website, . 
_ provides "coverage of new and forthcoming African publications" and includes a 
"book review section, reviews of new journals, and features a variety of news, reports, and articles 
about African book trade activities and developments." The website does not provide any 
circulation or distribution data. The petitioner has not provided evidence showing that the 
publication is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. Similarly, the 
petitioner has not shown that is a qualifying publication or other major media, as required 
under the criterion. Specifically, on appeal, the petitioner cites the website at 
http:// www . 
_ _ 
in 
support of his assertion that ' is a bi-monthly publication of the 
" which the petitioner claims is one of the three major professional creativity 
organizations in the world. The website address that the petitioner provides is not valid, and thus 
does not s1:1pport the petitioner's assertions relating to or the 
) 
Finally, the record includes other evidence that the petitioner has submitted to show that he meets 
this criterion, including reviews of his book 
� 
posted on 
� 
and materials from conferences. On appeal, the petitioner has not 
continued to assert that these materials meet this criterion. As such, the petitioner has abandoned 
this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. United States Att y Gen., 401 F.3d 
1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV -27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court found the plaintiffs claims to be 
abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). Moreover, the petitioner has not submitted 
evidence showing that these materials have · been published in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted published material about him in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media, relating to his work in the field for which classification is 
sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
5 See http:ljwww. 
proceeding. 
See htto:// 
http://ww� 
accessed on October 21, 2014 and incorporated into the record of 
and 
, accessed on October 21, 2014 and incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
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 appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because of the "discoveries that he has 
made and. ideas that he has developed to explain the human condition and to help humanity to better 
understand and resolve the crises it is facing, and to build the future it desires." The petitioner 
her states that "f s lome of fhis 1 central ideas ... are: (1) ; (2) 
(3) · (4) : (5) fthel 
_ 
and (7) • 
petitioner has not shown that he meets this criterion. 
(6) 
" The 
First, the petitioner's authorship of materials alone, without evidence of the materials' impact in the 
field, is insufficient to establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. The regulations contain a 
separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). If the 
regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that the regulation views 
contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles. Publication and 
presentations are not sufficient evidence under this criterion absent evidence that they are of "major 
significance" in the field. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 
596 F.3d at 1115. In Kazarian, the court reaffirmed its holding that our adverse finding under this 
criterion was not an abuse of discretion. 596 F.3d at 1122. Typically, in considering whether 
published material is a contribution of major significance, we look at the impact the material has 
after publication. The evidence in the record does not establish that any of the petitioner's written 
works constitutes major significance in the field, such that it significantly impacted the field as a 
whole or that it fundamentally advanced the field as a whole. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that the Nigerian government praised his 1992 book : 
-. �0- . 
_ 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a 
forward in the book written by the Secretary to the Government of Nigeria and materials from 1993 
and 1994 relating to the Nigerian government's involvement in the launching and purchasing of the 
petitioner's book. The evidence, relates to the Nigerian government's positive reception of the 
petitioner's book at the time of publication. At issue, however, is not the initial reception of the 
book. At issue is the impact the petitioner's book has had in the field as a whole upon publication 
and dissemination. Similarly, Mr. ; review ofthe petitioner's book 
_ does not provide any information on how the petitioner's book ultimately impacted the 
field as a whole. Rather, Mr. review focuses on the contents of the book and his opinion of 
the contents of the book, without discussing how the book has impacted the filed as a whole. 
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. Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (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). The petitioner has not shown 
what impact his book has had in the field since its publishing in 1992. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Moreover, the email and note from now deceased former Professor 
. _ 
, and a former do not establish that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. For example, according to a 1995 handwritten note from Professor 
the petitioner's writing entitled ' 
� . 
' was "a remarkable piece, for which [the petitioner was] to 
be commended highly and encouraged greatly." Professor praised the petitioner's piece in 
general terms, but did not discuss the impact of the piece in the field as a whole, or provide evidence 
showing that the impact is consistent with contributions of major significance in the field. 
Second, conclusory statements that lack details on why the petitioner's work was original or how it 
impacted the field as a whole are insufficient to establish that the petitioner has met this criterion. A 
1996 handwritten note with the initials ' at the bottom on the letterhead of the 
states that the petitioner's paper on creativity training "is 
getting some circulation" and that the petitioner's "message is the 
(Capitalized letters in original.) The petitioner asserts that Professor "one of the 
foremost and most highly respected creativity scholars in modern time," had written the note. The 
letter does not provide any specific information on how the petitioner's paper has impacted the field 
or provide examples showing that the impact is consistent with contributions of major significant in 
the field. Rather, the handwritten note, which appears to be a personal note to the petitioner, praises 
the petitioner and his work in general terms. While Professor indicates that she is bringing 
the petitioner's work to the attention of others, she does not indicate that those others have already 
applied the petitioner's ideas in their own work. This note is insufficient to show that the petitioner 
meets this criterion. 
Similarly, the 1999 letter from Ph.D. , Professor �--- ., 
_ , does not provide information on how the petitioner's work has impacted the field as a 
whole. According to Professor the petitioner "is credited with important and valuable 
contributions to the field of creativity and to critical areas of national concern," including issues 
relating to "disadvantaged persons and the public service," "inner city youth and the development of 
entrepreneurship" and "teaching and training of [] scholars." The letter briefly explains the nature 
and conclusions of the petitioner's work. Other than stating, in a conclusory manner, that the 
petitioner has made "important and valuable contributions" and "major significant contributions," 
Professor letter does not explain how the petitioner's work has impacted the field as a whole. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). Moreover, merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d 
Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *1, 5 
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Similarly, we need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, 
Inc. v. United States Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Third, evidence that the petitioner may in the future impact the field is not sufficient to establish that 
the petitioner has met this criterion, which requires evidence that the petitioner has already made 
original contributions of major significance in the field. In his 1995 handwritten note, Professor 
stated that he "hope[d the petitioner's] name will become as well known for creativity in the 
Third World as is here and in many other countries."7 Professor requested 
that the petitioner "keep [him] informed on [thel potentially world-shaking work [the petitioner was] 
embarking on." In his 1999 letter, Professor stated that the petitioner's "research will lead to 
significant advances in the economic and social development of America's low-income 
neighborhoods as well as the others." The petitioner has not shown at the time he filed his petition 
in 2013, many years after the handwritten note and letter, what the impact, if any, his work has had 
in the field or that the impact is consistent with contributions of major significance in the field. In 
his 2004 email, Professor stated that it was good that the petitioner and "the great Nigeria 
group" could celebrate the celebration with him, and noted that his "[p ]rediction and 
dream of fthe petitioner] becoming the of the Mrican continent is coming true." 
Professor did not explain in this email or any other writing in the record why he believed 
that the petitioner was becoming the , of the Mrican continent. The petitioner also has 
not explained how becoming the of the Mrican continent constitutes contributions of 
major significance in the field. Similarly, positive book reviews demonstrate the reviewer's opinion 
of the book at the time of the review, but do not demonstrate the ultimate impact of the book after 
publication and dissemination. The record does not reflect that other sociologists or those focusing 
on creative studies have cited the petitioner's books in their own work. 
Vague letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient.8 Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 
1036, aff 'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and 
have been considered above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition 
is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien'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. !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 Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (upholding our decision to give minimal weight to 
7 On appeal, the petitioner asserts that is "the world-famous 'father' of modem creativity and Professor 
senior partner in founding modem world's spreading creativity movement." 
8 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
-- --- �-------�---�---· . ---�---· ... .. . --� - ------- ·-··-
NON�PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
vague, solicited letters from colleagues or associates that do not provide details on contributions of 
major significance in the field). 
Fourth, evidence that the petitioner's presentations and/or workshops have been well received is 
insufficient to show that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
According to 1994 documents from Nigeria governmental entities, the petitioner's 1994 creative 
problem solving workshop was "a success," of "immense benefit," was "found to be very educative 
and useful." The documents also show that the various governmental entities requested the 
petitioner to conduct additional workshops. At issue is not how the individuals who attended his 
workshops or presentations initially received his work. Rather, at issue is the impact the petitioner's 
work has had on the field as a whole after dissemination through the workshops. 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 (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). 
Fifth, the evidence that the petitioner's work has "inspired" the work of another is insufficient to 
establish the impact of the petitioner's work in the field. The petitioner has submitted a letter and an 
email from . as well as "a synopsis for the 
initiative inspired by [the petitioner]." The evidence 
shows that Mr. found value in the petitioner's work, relied on the petitioner's work in his 
own work on a project called ' ' and organized a roundtable 
discussion at the , in which the petitioner participated. Evidence of 
Mr. appreciation of the petitioner's work is insufficient to show the impact of the 
petitioner's work in the field. This evidence shows that certain people, including Mr. have 
found value and interest in the petitioner's work. This, however, is insufficient to show a wider 
impact of the petitioner's work in the field as a whole consistent with a contribution of major 
significance. 
Sixth, the petitioner's involvement in social media platforms does not establish his impact in the 
field. The petitioner's social media presence relates to the dissemination of his ideas and works. 
Mere dissemination of one's work does not indicate the impact of the work. Rather, to show that the 
petitioner meets this criterion, he must submit sufficient evidence of the impact in the field after the 
dissemination of his work, and he must show that the impact is consistent with contributions of 
major significance in the field. The petitioner has not made such a showing. 
Finally, the record includes other types of evidence, including the petitioner's authorship of other 
materials, involvement in conferences, and other letters of reference. On appeal, the petitioner has 
not specifically maintained that these types of evidence meet this criterion. As such, the petitioner 
has abandoned these issues, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; 
Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of his 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 prof essional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F. R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(vi). 
The petitioner has not shown that he meets this 
criterion. 
First, the petitioner has not· shown that 
� 
has been published in a qualif ing publication or other major media. The petitioner 
asserts on appeal that was ' � " published 
this book. The petitioner has not submitted any evidence relating to this publisher that establishes 
the publisher as a professional or major trade plfJication or other major media, as required under the 
plain language of the criterion. Similarly, the petitioner has not submitted any evidence relating to 
which the petitioner claims published his 
, � _ . 
Thus, the petitioner has not 
shown that his books have been published in a qualifying publication or other major media. 
Second, although the petitioner claims on page 11 of the appellate brief that 
oublished his book 
and ==:::::::::::::==::::==:-_. 
. the petitioner has provided insufficient evidence showing 
which publisher actually published the book. The petitioner has provided an incomplete copy of the 
book, including the title page and the copyright page. The incomplete copy does not indicate that 
_ 
_ published the book. Rather, the copyright page appears to 
indicate that the petitioner had self-published the book and that the book was printed in the United 
States by The petitioner has not submitted any evidence relating to 
major media.10 showing that it is a qualifying publication or other 
Finally, the petitioner has submitted other evidence to support his assertion that he meets this 
criterion, including evidence of his authorship of research nronosals. book orooosals, svmoosium 
and conference presentatio!lli, including those entitled ' 
10 
The websites for both ' 
http://www and https://www 
record of proceeding. 
show that they are self-publishing companies See 
accessed on January 20, 2015 and incorporated into the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
' The petitioner has not submitted any evidence that these materials have been published, 
such as in conference proceedings. On appeal, the petitioner has not continued to assert that his 
other works, including those not specifically listed above, establish that he meets this criterion. As 
such, the petitioner has abandoned these issues; as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 
401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. Moreover, the petitioner has not submitted 
evidence showing that these written works have been published or that they have been published in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of his 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. P.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(vi). 
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 appeal, the etitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because: (1) he facilitated collaborations 
between � _ , and between 
and (2) he facilitated the establishment of 
(3) the 
requested the petitioner's assistance in rebuilding the school; (4) has "applaud[ed]" the 
petitioner's activities; and (5) has accepted the petitioner's 
request for support in the initiative. The petitioner has not shown that he 
meets this criterion. 
To show that the petitioner meets this criterion, the petitioner has to demonstrate that he has' 
performed a leading or critical role for qualifying organizations or establishments. A leading role 
should be evident based not only on the petitioner's title but his duties associated with the position. 
A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the organization or establishment 
as a whole. To show his role in an organization or establishment, the petitioner may submit an 
organizational chart demonstrating how his role fits within the hierarchy of the organization or 
establishment. 
First, although the evidence shows that the petitioner has been involved in the collaborative efforts 
among and universities in Africa, the petitioner has not shown that he has performed in a 
leading or critical role in the collaborative efforts. On appeal, the petitioner points to a 2012 letter 
from and a 2011 letter from , Ph.D., Vice-Chancellor, 
as supporting evidence that his work in their collaborative efforts meets this criterion. 
The letter provides that a group from visited in 2011 and that 
invited the petitioner and others from to visit · in Nigeria in 2012. The letter further 
states that the purpose of the visit to Nigeria was "to agree on a range of capacity building and 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
development projects for the implementation of the collaborative relationship" between and 
The letter does not provide specific information on what role the petitioner has performed 
in the collaborative efforts between the two schools, or evidence showing that the petitioner's role is 
leading or critical to the collaborative efforts. Similarly, although the 2011 letter from Dr. 
asks the petitioner to "set in motion the machinery for dialogue" between the two schools, the letter 
does not indicate what the petitioner has done in the collaborative efforts or that the collaborative 
efforts have even taken place between the two schools. 
Significantly, in his undated letter, Ph.D., Director of , makes no mention 
of the etitioner having any involvement in the collaborative efforts among the schools. Nor does 
Dr. letter provide evidence showing that the petitioner's role in the collaborative 
efforts is either leading or critical. Similarly, the January 2009 online announcement of the 
petitioner joining the makes no mention of the petitioner's involvement in any collaboration 
among the schools. In addition, a September 2011 working paper relating to the and 
collaboration makes no mention of the petitioner's role in the collaboration. As such, the 
petitioner has not shown that he meets this criterion based on the collaborative efforts among the 
schools. 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that his involvement in establishing relationship 
between meets this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner 
asserts that he facilitated negotiations that "culminated m the establishment of 
Relationship between the __ _ J J , � • 
" The 2004 letter from the mayor 
of New York, indicates that the petitioner will facilitate communications between the two 
cities, without providing details on what specifically the petitioner will do or has done. The record 
also includes an undated article entitled ' 
published in 
_ 
According to the article, the petitioner "visited the 
City of along with several delegates from ' Although the article shows that the 
petitioner was involved in the process, it does not provide details on what the petitioner did to 
establish the relationship, other than visiting with delegates from The 
petitioner has not shown that his activities of visiting and facilitating negotiations are 
indicative of the petitioner performing either a leading or critical role. The petitioner has also not 
specified the organization or establishment for which the petitioner has performed a leading or 
critical role when establishing the relationship or demonstrated that the organization or 
establishment has a distinguished reputation, as required under the criterion. 
Third, the 2006 letter from Ph.D., Director, the 
indicates that the petitioner has expressed interest in rebuilding the 
· The letter, however, does not establish what the petitioner has done for the 
university or what role the petitioner has in the rebuilding efforts. Although the letter notes that the 
petitioner has agreed to participate in a number of events and programs, it does not confirm that the 
petitioner has actually participated in these events or programs, or that his participation constitutes 
his performing a leading or critical role in the rebuilding of the university. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
Fourth, the 2004 letter from President of states that has decided to provide 
scholarships and materials to selected 
recipients. The letter mentions the petitioner's name once, but does not provide any information 
relating to what he has done for or provide evidence showing that the role the 
petitioner has performed for these organizations or establishments is either leading or critical. 
Fifth, the 2006 email from ' with the email address of : .com indicates that 
the petitioner has been involved in a project associated with the • , which according to the 
petitioner stands for . Neither the email nor other evidence in the 
record indicates what specifically the petitioner has done as relating to the project or how his role in 
the project constitutes a leading or critical role for the project. Moreover, the petitioner has also not 
provided information relating to the reputation, let alone distinguished reputation, of this project or 
As such, the petitioner has not shown that he meets this criterion based on his involvement in 
the project. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence that he 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). 
C. 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. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.12 
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, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12 
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(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).