dismissed EB-1A Case: Religion

fhdQinp data deleted to 
prevent citi, - , lmwarranted 
invasion of personal pnvacj 
~LIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Elomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
c SRC 08 072 52501 
 OCT 1 9 2009 
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. 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
/ub4adbdb Peny Rhew 
*chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification 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 as a pastor. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Notwithstanding, we find that the petitioner does not work in one of the fields designated by 
Congress for the classification sought. Although our finding on this issue renders the question of 
whether the beneficiary meets the regulatory criteria in any field moot, we will also consider that 
issue. As discussed below, the petitioner does not meet any of the regulatory criteria, of which an 
alien must meet at least three to be eligible for the classification sought. 
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. 
The Petitioner's Field of Expertise 
At time of original submission, the petitioner did not complete Part 5 and Part 6 of the Form 1-140 
immigrant visa petition, which included questions regarding the petitioner's occupation and job title. 
We note that counsel signed the petition as the person preparing the form. Ln addition, counsel asserted 
in his cover letter that the petitioner is "an immigrant worker with extra-ordinary ability in religion." In 
response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a revised Part 6 of Form 1-140, 
which he indicated that his job title was a pastor. 
We must presume that the phrase "in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. See Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters., 519 U.S. 202, 
209 (1997); Bailey v. U.S., 516 U.S. 137, 145 (1995). 
 If Congress had intended all aliens of 
extraordinary ability, regardless of their field, to qualify under section 203(b)(l)(A), there would 
have been no purpose in including the phrase "in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics." 
As Congress did use that phrase, it can be presumed that there may be aliens of extraordinary ability, 
who enjoy sustained national or international acclaim, that are nevertheless ineligible for 
classification under section 203(b)(l)(A) solely because their occupation does not fall within the 
sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. To hold otherwise would render the clear language 
of the statute meaningless and undermine Congressional intent. 
Counsel cites no legal authority that would allow an alien who has extraordinary ability in religion to be 
eligible under one of the classifications pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. The "exceptional 
ability" classification, now under section 203(b)(2) of the Act, existed prior to the enactment of the Act. 
When the Act was amended in 1990, there existed case law interpreting "arts" as including "athletics." 
The extraordinary ability classification, however, was an entirely new classification. Thus, Congress 
chose the fields for this new classification very specifically, expressly adding "athletics" to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, whereas it did not do so under section 203(b)(2) of the Act where it was 
already presumed to fall with the "arts." "Where Congress includes particular language in one section 
of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts 
intentionally and purposehlly in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 
U.S. 421, 432 (1987). Thus, Congress was capable of expanding the fields previously recognized and 
chose not to expand the list of fields other than by adding athletics. 
In light of the above, the petitioner must establish that his field of expertise and the employment he 
intends to pursue fall within the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. 
Moreover, there is no reason to presume that Congress must have intended for religion to fall under 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. In a separate part of the Act, Congress defined religious workers as 
special immigrants pursuant to section 101(a)(27)(C) of the Act. To admit a member of the clergy who 
is not seeking an academic post as an alien of extraordinary ability in education would frustrate 
Congress' intent in defining the eligibility requirements for clergy. Given the petitioner's listed "job 
title" on the Form 1-140, it is reasonable that he must meet the requirements for a religious worker or 
minister to obtain an employment based visa petition approved in his behalf 
We acknowledge that religious workers are not precluded from consideration under the L-1 
nonimmigrant "managerial" classification pursuant to section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Act. Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 596-97 (Commr. 1988). That determination, 
however, results from the recognition that some religious organizations are sufficiently hierarchical. Id. 
That decision, however, found that since the classification was designed for businesses rather than 
religious organizations, the same standards used for businesses would apply. Unlike the 
- 
Page 4 
nonimmigrant L-1 classification, the immigrant classification sought in this matter is expressly 
limited by statute to those in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. 
Where the language of the statute is clear on its face, there is no need to inquire into congressional 
intent. INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183 (1984); Shaar v. INS, 141 F. 3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 1998); 
Matter of Lemhammad, 20 I&N Dec. 3 16 (BIA 1991). Congress' language limiting the fields for 
extraordinary ability to the sciences, arts, education, business, and athletics is clear. 
As the petitioner has not established that hs field of expertise and proposed activities fall within the 
sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, any further discussion of the evidence under the 
regulatory criteria is moot. Nevertheless, for purposes of thoroughness, we will address the evidence 
below. 
Extraordinary Ability 
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 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on December 31, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a pastor. On appeal, counsel contends that the petition was denied in error 
because the supporting evidence clearly established eligibility under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Counsel further states: 
The evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner is a person of extraordinary ability in the 
field of Karate and he is already at the top of his field. The evidence also attest to the 
fact that the Petitioner has sustained national acclaim as a Pastor and he is recognized 
as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of that field. 
The record is absent any evidence that the petitioner is a person of extraordinary ability in the field 
of karate. In fact, it is only mentioned once, stated above, in the brief for the appeal by counsel. The 
petition was filed based on the petitioner's occupation as a pastor, and all supporting documents, 
submitted both at time of filing and in response to the director's intent to deny, relate to the 
petitioner's occupation as a pastor and not in the field of karate. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 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 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 petitioner 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). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. Certificate issued by the Nepal Methodist Theological Seminary in Kathmandu, 
Nepal, on May 2,2006, stating the petitioner received his bachelor of theology; 
2. Certificate issued by the International Open University of Theology in Siliguri, 
West Bengal, India, on November 10, 2006, stating the petitioner was awarded his 
bachelor of theology; 
3. Certificate from Eternal Light Ministries on November 30, 1990, for his graduation 
from Word of Light Bible School; 
4. Plaque fi-om om Se-Shin Methodist Church on 
October 1, 2002, for the consecration of the building for the Nepal Methodist 
Church; and 
5. Appreciation letter from the Independent Christian Chitwan Unity on July 19,2000, 
for the petitioner's "valuable suggestation [sic] by giving his valuable time." 
Items 1 through 3 reflect earned degrees and completion of educational studies rather than nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. With regard to 
items 4 and 5, there is no evidence demonstrating their significance. The petitioner has not 
established that his plaque and appreciation letter reflect national or international recognition for 
excellence in the field rather than institutional recognition. For example, there is no evidence 
showing that petitioner's plaque and appreciation letter had a significant level of recognition beyond 
the presenting organization. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally 
recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. In 
this case, there is no evidence demonstrating that items 1 through 5 are tantamount to nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the petitioner's field of endeavor. 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzfication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted "The book of discipline of Nepal Methodist Church" (2002), which gives 
an overview and structure of the church. Counsel contends: 
[The petitioner] is a founder [sic] member of the Nepal Methodist Church. He founded 
Nepal Methodist Church in 2002. He prepared the bylaws of this church. He built the 
building of Nepal Methodist Church (NMC) and merged other churches with NMC. 
While counsel contends that the petitioner prepared the bylaws, nothing in the document 
corroborates this assertion, nor is there even any mention of the petitioner. Without documentary 
evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
Regardless, the petitioner failed to establish that to become a member of the Nepal Methodist 
Church the petitioner was required to demonstrate outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he 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 the field for which classzfication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translations. 
The petitioner submitted a "Heartfelt Felicitation" from the Himalayan Times, dated December 6, 
2007, and the Annapurna Post, dated December 4,2007, stating: 
We, express our heartfelt felicitation to 
 for his outstanding 
ministry with the establishment of 133 Churches, ordination of 31 elders and 5 decans 
[sic] during his chairmanship in N.M.C. Methodist Church Ktm since 1991 to 2007. 
The "Heartfelt Felicitation" appears to be a paid message from the "N.M.C. Family & N.M.C. 
Believers Church Family," which is situated in the business section of the Himalayan Times. In the 
Annapurna Post, the "Heartfelt Felicitation" is located in an unknown section but is situated next to 
paid advertisements. 
While counsel argues that the petitioner has "been highly praised by the recognized critics in leading 
Nepali daily and weekly newspapers," the documents do not support this argument. No evidence was 
submitted establishing that the Himalayan Times and Annapurna Post are professional or major 
trade publications or other major media relating the petitioner's work in education. Further, paid 
advertisements and general messages of appreciation are not considered published material about the 
petitioner relating to his work. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he 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 submitted the following: 
1. Certificate from the World Methodist Evangelism Institute of the World Methodist 
Council from June 19, 2007, to June 26, 2007, for completing the course of study 
"That the World May Know Jesus Christ" for the Eighth International Evangelism 
Seminar; 
2. Directory for the Eighth International Evangelism Seminar; 
3. Letter f;om - of the world Methodist Evangelism 
Institute, dated January 18, 2007, requesting the petitioner to attend the Eighth 
International Evangelism Seminar; and 
4. Four pictures showing the petitioner attending the Eighth International Evangelism 
Seminar, including a group picture. 
Counsel contends that the petitioner meets this criterion because of his participation in various 
seminars and conferences. The mere attendance and participation in seminars are not indicative or 
original contributions of major significance. The petitioner has failed to establish how his 
attendance and participation made original contributions that have significantly influenced or 
impacted his field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
At the time of original filing of the petition, the petitioner submitted four pictures and a DVD for 
several events. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(vii) reveals that this 
criterion applies to the visual arts. The beneficiary is a pastor. The ten criteria in the regulations are 
designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. Given that the 
beneficiary is a pastor, he would not satisfy this criterion simply by demonstrating participation and 
speeches at different events. Further, the petitioner did not address this criterion in response to the 
director's notice of intent to deny or on appeal. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he 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 submitted the following: 
1. Certificate from and - ordaining the 
petitioner as an elder of the Nepal Methodist Church on May 3,2006; 
2. DVD evidencing the ordination on May 3,2006; and 
3. Certificate from and ordaining the 
petitioner as a deacon of the Nepal Methodist Church on January 22,2003. 
Counsel also states: 
The Elder is the "pastor," the one who usually preaches, leads the sacraments, presides 
at worship, counsels, visits. Elders also earn bachelors and graduate degrees and are 
appointed to churches by their bishops. They too begin by being recommended by their 
local Methodist church and pastor after being active in the church. 
Decan [sic] is a professional minister whose call is to ministries of service to church 
and world other than leading a local church. Some examples are Directors of Program, 
Directors of Education, Music Directors, Church Administrators, Chaplains. Deacons 
attain a bachelor's degree and a graduate degree in ministry at an approved seminary. 
Men and women are qualified to apply. All candidates must be active United 
Methodists who are recommended by their local church and pastor. Deacons may assist 
Elders in leading worship. 
Counsel also states that the petitioner is "a lvghly talented and recognized individual in Nepal and 
abroad" and is the "founder of Nepal Methodist Church and elected for President. (See 
Recommendation letter by 2006)." However, a review of the record does not reflect 
that a "Recommendation July 14, 2006" was ever submitted, either at time of initial 
filing of the petition or subsequently. Furthermore, while not mentioned by counsel, a brochure from 
the Nepal Methodist Church was submitted at the time of filing of the petition. The brochures states 
- 
that , who is General Superintendent of the New Methodist Church, started 
the church in 1991, which contradicts counsels claim that the petitioner is the founder. The brochure 
also states six deacon pastors were ordained on January 22, 2003, and five elder pastors were 
ordained on May 3, 2006. The petitioner was not the only ordained deacon or elder from Nepal 
Methodist Church. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
While the petitioner has been ordained and served as a deacon and an elder in the Nepal Methodist 
Church, the petitioner has failed to establish how his role as a deacon or elder differentiated him 
from other deacons or elders in the Nepal Methodist Church. In this case, the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the success or standing of the 
organization to which he was appointed to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical 
role" and indicative of sustained national or intemational acclaim. In addition, the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner does not establish that the Nepal Methodist Church has a distinguished 
reputation. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner's field of religion as a pastor falls under 
one of the ~Iassifications under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Regardless, the petitioner has not 
distinguished himself to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
intemational acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence 
is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in 
his field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.