dismissed EB-1A Case: Public Relations

identifying data deleted to 
prevena c f czly tr nv~arranted 
invasion ofpcrsond privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Senices 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
John F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as 
an alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that 
the beneficiary had the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that the beneficiary meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) and that the director applied incorrect standards in denying the petition. 
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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on November 30, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a Public Relations Specialist to Elan, a pop singer. 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the beneficiary meets a specific criterion, 
the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent 
with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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." 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
Each petition must be adjudicated on its own merits under the statutory provisions and regulations 
which apply. Thus, the beneficiary's eligibility will be evaluated under the regulatory criteria relating to 
the immigrant classification as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner does not assert that the 
beneficiary meets any criteria not discussed below. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner did not provide any evidence for this criterion, either initially or in response to the 
director's Request for Evidence ("RFE"). On June 13, 2008, the director in his decision found that 
the record did not contain evidence for this criterion. On appeal, however, the petitioner provided an 
uncertified letter, dated June 16, 2008, from the Fermatta Academy of Music, stating that the 
beneficiary was selected to receive the "Ibero-American Award in honor of educational excellence 
2008." It appears the beneficiary was awarded with this honor after she filed her petition on 
November 3, 2007. As a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot 
be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). In addition, the letter was not 
accompanied by a certified translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(3). 
We find the evidence submitted on appeal does not satisfy this criterion. Specifically, in addition to 
the above-detailed deficiencies, the petitioner also failed to provide documentation about the award 
received by the beneficiary, such as evidence regarding the awards' prestige, selection process or 
candidates that the beneficiary was competing against. Without such information, the petitioner 
failed to establish the national or international recognition of this award. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which classcJication is sought. Such 
Page 4 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The petitioner initially submitted the copies of Elan's album covers, whch credit the beneficiary for 
"production coordination." The petitioner also provided various articles and reviews about Elan, which 
the index stated the beneficiary "arranged" for Elan. The reviews were from websites including 
amazon.com and three other websites which cannot be identified because the web address was cut off at 
the bottom of the page. The petitioner provided an article that was purportedly published in the Los 
Angeles Times, however the actual article submitted came from a website entitled calendarlive.com. 
Although the first page of the original article from the Los Angeles Times appears to have been 
submitted, it cannot be confirmed as the name and date of the publication were not written anywhere on 
this page. Two additional articles were provided from an internet source also without the internet link 
referenced on the bottom of the page, presumably from a website entitled Undercover. Additional 
articles submitted were published in the Reporter of Guadalajara, Gene Simmons Tongue, Sun Diego 
Weekly Reader, answers.com, wikipedia.com, and billboard.com. None of these articles or reviews 
even mentioned the beneficiary. 
Despite the director's RFE finding that there was not sufficient evidence to fulfill this criteria, the 
petitioner did not provide any new evidence in response to the RFE. In his decision, the director found 
that the initial evidence provided failed to satisfy this criterion as the articles were not about the alien, 
and were also not published in major trade publications or other major media. Further, no new evidence 
was provided on appeal. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
beneficiary and, as stated in the regulation, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local 
publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but 
would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community 
papers. 
1 
The petitioner failed to submit evidence to establish that the articles submitted were published in a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media, if published at all. Most of the articles 
submitted were published on the Internet. We note that in today's world, many newspapers, regardless 
of size and distribution, post at least some of their stories on the Internet. To ignore this reality 
would be to render the "major media" requirement meaningless. We are not persuaded that 
international accessibility via the Internet by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given 
publication is a form of "major media." The petitioner must still provide evidence, such as, a 
widespread readership or overall interest in the publication in order to demonstrate that the 
1 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 5 
publication is a professional or major trade publication or a form of major media in order for us to 
credit these articles. 
Additionally, while the album covers briefly mention the beneficiary's name, they are not published 
material about the beneficiary. Moreover, none of the articles or reviews provided even mentions the 
beneficiary, and they do not relate to her work. The articles all discuss Elan, the pop star, and do not 
discuss the beneficiary's role as a public relations specialist. Moreover, many of the articles and 
reviews provided fail to include the publication name and date, both required by 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
For all of the above stated reasons, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner provided several letters of recommendation as evidence for this criterion including: 
1. A letter dated November 12, 2007 from Matthew Rifat, an entertainment attorney, stated that 
the beneficiary is "caring, patient, capable at public relations and precise in handling a large 
volume of work." 
2. A letter dated October 30, 2007 from a director at Fermatta Music Academy, 
wrote the beneficiary's "involvement with Elan's career has been truly helpful and the results 
are very visible in 
 international operations." 
3. A letter dated October 29, 2007 from a Senior Director at Reaccion 
Media, stated that the beneficiary is "one of the best artist relations and personal assistants 
I've personally interacted with." She also wrote, "I dare to say she is one of the best in her 
line of work." 
4. A letter dated October 29, 2007 from, a Senior Director at Reaccion Media, 
wrote almost the same exact letter, word for word, as 
 She also found the 
beneficiary to be "one of the best artist relations and personal assistants I've [she has] 
personally interacted with." 
5. A letter dated October 16, 2007 from, Strategic 
Warner Music Mexico also wrote the exact same sentiments as 
Her letter similarly stated that the beneficiary is "one of the best artist relations and personal 
assistants I've personally interacted with." 
6. A letter dated October 10, 2007 from, Senior Vice President of Fermatta 
Music Academy, wrote that the beneficiary is "well organized and a very diligent worker" 
and that she "plays a crucial role" in Elan's professional life. 
7. A letter dated October 10,2007 from, Chief Finance Officer of Fermatta 
Music Academy, stated that she considers the beneficiary "a true standout in her line of 
work." 
Page 6 
8. A letter dated September 14, 2006 from, Senior Commercial Director of 
OCESA, wrote that the beneficiary is "diligent" and "plays a crucial role" in Elan's 
professional life. 
9. A letter dated September 14, 2006 from, Mastering Engineer from Capital 
Mastering, wrote that the beneficiary is "one of the best artist relations and personal 
assistants I have been in contact with." 
10. A letter dated August 30, 2006 from 
 Market Expansion Manager at 
Microsoft, wrote that the beneficiary is "ve 
 efficient" and "her speed of work is amazing." 
1 1. A letter dated August 25, 2006 from , Senior Director of Latin Music at BMI, 
similarly stated that the beneficiary is "one of the best artist relations and personal assistants 
I've personally interacted with." 
12. A letter dated April 3, 2008 from praised the beneficiary for her "amazing" work, and 
credited her success to the beneficiary. 
13. A letter dated April 7, 2008 from , Executive Director of Fermatta Music 
Academy, wrote that the petitioner has given lectures on Public Relations at her academy and 
credits her with taking- an independent artist and making her into an "internationally 
renowned star." The petitioner also included a letter from inviting the beneficiary 
to be a seminar participant. 
14. A letter dated April 22, 2008 from 
 President and CEO of Abbywho, wrote that 
the beneficiary is a "crucial part" of their team and the "key to worldwide operations." 
Items 1 through 11 were submitted initially. In the RFE, the director noted that "in order for the 
contribution to constitute an original contribution of major significance, the accomplishment must be 
both original and have a demonstrable impact on the field or set a standard to which others aspire." 
Items 12 through 14 were submitted in response to the RFE. In addition to Items 12 through 14, the 
petitioner also submitted an announcement from Fermatta University indicating that the beneficiary 
will be giving a seminar in January of 2008, as well as a certificate which recognized her 
participation in that seminar. The petitioner also provided a certificate dated December 14, 2007 
recognizing the beneficiary for "her invaluable contribution to music education." An itinerary 
organized by the beneficiary for 2008 Shine World Tour was also submitted to show the 
beneficiary's contributions to s career. No new evidence was provided on appeal. 
The preceding letters of recommendation, as well as the other evidence provided, discuss the 
beneficiary's skills as a public relations specialist and personal assistant. However, they fail to 
demonstrate that she has made original contributions of major significance in her field. The letters 
include no substantive discussion as to which of her specific achievements rise to the level of 
original contributions of major significance in her field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We 
must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some 
meaning. While the beneficiary's hard work, efficiency and organization are admired by those 
offering letters of support, there is no evidence demonstrating that her work has had major 
significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the beneficiary's 
influence on the field of public relations nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field 
has somehow changed as a result of her work. 
The certificate recognizing the beneficiary for "her invaluable contribution to music education" 
comes closest to the type of evidence necessary to fulfill this criterion. However, the beneficiary's 
field of endeavor is not music education. Further, it appears that this certificate of recognition 
relates to the beneficiary's seminar at Fennatta University, which the record does not evidence to be 
a contribution of major significance. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation and other relevant evidence submitted by the petitioner 
are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner initially submitted the beneficiary's resume stating that she authored an article entitled 
- 
"-, in 2000 in the VOCES, an ITESO university magazine. The beneficiary's resume 
also listed her as a co-author of '" a pending publication. No further 
evidence was provided for this criterion in response to the WE or on appeal. The director's decision 
found the record failed to contain sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion. 
Neither of these two articles was provided. The petitioner's first article was purportedly published in 
2000, seven years after the petition was filed. Such a lapse in time would be insufficient to 
demonstrate sustained acclaim in the beneficiary's field. The second article listed in the beneficiary's 
resume is a pending publication. There is no evidence to show that the article was ever published or 
that it was published as of the petition's filing date. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time 
of filing. 8 C.F.R. 55 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. As such, this article 
cannot be considered for this criterion. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner did not submit any evidence for this criterion initially or in response to the WE. The 
director noted in his decision that the record lacked "objective, documentary evidence demonstrating 
that the beneficiary's contributions have led directly to the success of Elan." The director noted that 
the evidence only provided a basis for establishing that the beneficiary served as a personal assistant 
and manager for Elan. 
On appeal, a letter was provided from dated August 5, 2008, a Coordinator of the 
Bachelor's Degree in Communication Sciences at ITESO University. The letter stated that the 
beneficiary "distinguished herself as being a student with work capacity, solid values, and a level of 
responsibility necessary for activities in the professional and human arena as well as showing an 
impeccable conduct." 
Page 8 
The beneficiary does not state a leading role or title that she held within her university, and therefore 
also fails to address the nature of the specific role within the organization. Simply being an 
outstanding undergraduate student is insufficient to meet this criterion. 
The regulation also requires that documentation be submitted by the petitioner to establish that the 
organization, in which she purports to have performed a leadership role, has a distinguished 
reputation. Similar to the aforementioned reasoning regarding the title of a position, the name 
recognition associated with a particular organization or entity is not tantamount to a distinguished 
reputation. There was no evidence provided to demonstrate that ITESO University has a 
distinguished reputation. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signlJicantIy high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in thefield. 
The petitioner initially provided her employment contract, dated August 23,2007, which states that the 
beneficiary will be paid either 8,000 pesos or $8,000 per month by Music Education S.A. de C.V. In 
his WE, the director requested documentary evidence to clarify whether the amount paid to the 
petitioner was in pesos or dollars, and to establish that this salary is high relative to others in the field. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided a letter written by its President and CEO,- 
stating that the beneficiary receives a 3% commission on all compact discs, Concerts and 
Merchandise sold by Elan and estimates that the amount of annual commissions received by the 
beneficiary is $35,000 dollars. The additiofial evidence failed to clarify whether the amount paid to the 
beneficiary by Music Education S.A. de C.V. was in pesos or dollars, or whether this salary was paid to 
her in addition to the commissions paid to her by the petitioner. 
The director found in his decision that the evidence provided failed to establish that this is high 
remuneration in relation to others in the beneficiary's field. We agree with the director. The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence that she has 
commanded a high salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for 
comparison showing that her compensation was significantly high in relation to others in her field. 
There is no indication that the petitioner has earned a level of compensation that places her among the 
highest paid public relation specialists in Mexico or the United States or any other country. 
Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The RFE noted that the petitioner did not initiaIIy submit any evidence for this criterion. In response to 
the WE, the counsel for the petitioner stated in her letter that "Elan sales have topped 1.5 million 
albums." The petitioner also provided Elan's compact discs. The director, in his decision, found that 
this claim regarding the number of sales failed to be supported by objective evidence. Further, the 
director wrote that "it is unclear how these sales can be attributed to the beneficiary." On appeal, the 
petitioner provided invoices and other records, presumably to establish Elan's commercial success. 
However, it is unclear what all the evidence represents, as there was no explanation for it. Further, none 
of this evidence demonstrates how Elan's commercial successes are attributable to the beneficiary's 
position as a public relations specialist. 
There would not be sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion, even if Elan herself was the 
beneficiary. The petitioner submitted no evidence showing how the number of sales of other albums 
in Elan's music's category compared to her own sales; or that the numbers presented otherwise show 
commercial success. The record also includes no evidence of documented "sales" or "receipts" 
showing that Elan achieved commercial successes in the performing arts in a manner consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field. For example, there is no 
indication that Elan's performances consistently drew record crowds, were regular sell-out 
performances, or resulted in greater audiences than other similar performances that did not feature 
Elan. Therefore, if the record fails to show that Elan fulfills this criterion, the record likewise cannot 
show that her public relations specialist fulfilled this category. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the reference letters submitted on the petitioner's behalf are 
comparable evidence of the beneficiary's extraordinary ability as a public relations specialist. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the 
ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language 
precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no evidence that 
eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria 
specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to meet three 
of the regulatory criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(4) does not 
allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
The reference letters submitted in support of this petition have already been addressed under the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. fjfj 204.5(h)(3)(v), (viii) and (ix). Further, there is no evidence 
showing that the documentation the petitioner requests re-evaluation of as comparable evidence 
constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with sustained national or international acclaim 
at the very top of her field. While reference letters can provide useful information about an alien's 
qualifications or help in assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters are not a substitute for other 
evidence of the alien's achievements and recognition as required by the statute and regulations. The 
classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international 
acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing the statute provide that the 
"intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this 
regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for 
lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Primary evidence of achievements 
and recognition is of far greater probative value than the opinions of one's professional acquaintances. 
This petition seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability. Pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, the petitioner must demonstrate the beneficiary's extraordinary 
ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. In counsel's initial letter, she claims 
that "the petition is for an individual of exceptional abilities in the arts, sciences, or business." First, 
"exceptional" is a lesser standard than "extraordinary," as required by the statute. Compare section 
203(b)(2) of the Act with section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Secondly, there is no evidence to support 
that claim. The only evidence that is relevant to one of the five fields is the beneficiary's certificate 
for "educational excellance" and her "invaluable contribution to music education." But, counsel 
does not even claim that the beneficiary has an extraordinary ability in education. Moreover, we 
interpret "arts" as visual or performing arts, not the "art" of coordinating Elan's schedules or gaining 
publicity for Elan. Therefore, the beneficiary would not fit within that category either. The record 
also fails to support that the beneficiary would fall within the business or science category, as most 
of the reference letters refer to the beneficiary as a "personal assistant" rather than a public relations 
specialist. Therefore, the petitioner fails to satisfy the requirements set forth in 203(b)(l)(A)(i). 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award, or that the beneficiary meets at least three of the criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished herself to such an extent 
that the beneficiary may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
beneficiary's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at the national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.