dismissed EB-1A Case: Religious Studies

U.S. Department of Hornetand Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: / SRC 07 035 53075 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 0 7 2008 
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. 
u 
%obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION : The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the emplo yment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner did not seek to work in one of the fields designated by Congress for this 
classification and had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we 
uphold the director's finding that the petitioner does not seek to work in one of the fields designated by 
Congress for the classification sought. Although our finding on the first issue renders the question of 
whether the beneficiary meets the regulatory criteria in any field moot, we will also consider this 
second issue. As discussed below, the petitioner only meets two 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 whch 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 and Future Employment 
On Part 5 of the Form 1-140 immigrant visa petition, the petitioner listed his occupation as 
"clergyman." The petitioner did not complete Part 6 of the petition, which requests basic information 
about the alien's proposed employment. We note that counsel signed the petition as the person 
preparing the form. In his cover letter, counsel asserted that the petitioner is "the foremost religious 
Page 3 
leader in Turkey, as well as the leading (or one of the leading) Islamic religious and educational 
advocates of religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue in the world." 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserts that the director 
"incorrectly characterizes [the petitioner] as a 'clergyman' despite the extensive documentary evidence 
included in the original submission that clearly indicates [that the petitioner] is a world-renowned 
scholar specializing in interfaith dialogue and the promotion of religious tolerance." (Emphasis in 
original.) As stated above, counsel signed the initial petition as the individual who prepared that 
petition, which lists the petitioner's occupation as "clergyman." Counsel does not explain how the 
director erred in using the same occupation listed on the petition. 
A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Regl. Commr. 197 1). Therefore, a petitioner may not make 
material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an apparently deficient 
petition conform to CIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Commr. 1998). 
The petitioner's occupation is a material issue. Thus, the petitioner may not now change his 
occupation. 
Also in response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner asserted that he 
intended to continue his "scholarly endeavors related to interfaith dialogue and religious tolerance." He 
asserts that his work consists of authoring articles and providing guidance "to fellow scholars in the 
fields of theology, political science, Islamic studies, and education." 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established how either working as a clergyman or 
promoting religious tolerance falls within the fields of science, art, education, business, or athletics. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that both religious scholars and clergy fall within the greater field of education. 
As an example, counsel notes that Pope Benedict XVI worked as a professor in Germany. Counsel 
notes the submission on appeal of expert opinions asserting that the petitioner's work falls within the 
field of education and concludes: "Whether he is considered a clergyman, religious scholar, leader of 
interfaith dialogue, or anythmg else, the nature of what [the petitioner] has accomplished, and as 
detailed in his affidavit, will continue to accomplish, is the promotion of interfaith tolerance through, 
inter alia, his scholarly research and advancing of secular education." The letters submitted on appeal, 
such as the letter fiom John L. Esposito, a professor at Georgetown University, note the historical role 
of religious institutions as providers of education and the participation by members of the clergy in 
teaching theology even today. 
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., 5 19 U.S. 202, 
209 (1 997); Bailey v. US., 5 16 U.S. 137, 145 (1 995). 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." 
Page 4 
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 for the implication that Congress intended to include the clergy or 
authors of religious tracts promoting a specific religious ideology under the category of "education." 
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 enacted 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@)(2) 
of the Act where it was already presumed to fall within 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 purposefully 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 the clergy 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 ~ct. ' To admit a member of the clergy 
who is not seelung 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 
"occupation" on the Form 1-140, it is reasonable that he must meet the requirements for a religious 
worker to obtain an employment based visa petition approved in his behalf. See e.g. Delta Air Lines, 
Inc. et al., v. INS, Civ. Action No. 00-2977-LFO (Dist. of Col. April 6, 2001)(acknowledging that a 
nonirnmigrant whose duties are primarily those of a crewman must be considered under the 
nonirnmigrant classification designed for crewmen). 
We acknowledge that religious workers are not precluded fkom consideration under the L-1 
nonimrnigrant "managerial" classification pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(L) of the Act. Matter of 
1 
 In fact, the petitioner is the beneficiary of a separate petition, receipt number EAC-0 1 - 172-54504, filed on 
April 30, 2001, seelung to classify the alien as a special immigrant religious worker pursuant to section 
101 (a)(27)(C) of the Act. While the approval of that petition was subsequently revoked, the alien's 
eligibility under the specific requirements for that program is irrelevant in our determination that the 
petitioner is primarily a religious figure rather than an academic scholar of theology who happens to be a 
member of the clergy. In counsel's most recent brief in support of that petition, dated September 10, 2007, 
counsel references the alien's status as a spiritual leader and pursuit of a religious vocation. 
Page 5 
Church Scientology International, 1 9 I&N Dec. 593, 596-97 (Comrnr. 1 988). 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 
nonimrnigrant 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. 
Counsel's example of the Pope is not persuasive. First, his case is not before us. Moreover, while 
he may have worked as an educator at one point, it cannot be credibly argued that his acclaim is as an 
educator rather than a religious leader. Finally, his intention in coming to the United States would be 
relevant. Assuming the Pope would seek to enter the United States to continue leading the Catholic 
Church or to pursue a lesser clergy position, the provisions of section 101(a)(27)(C) of the Act would 
be the most applicable to his occupation. If he sought to enter the United States to teach at a 
university, his past acclaim as an educator, not simply as a member of the clergy, would be relevant. 
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. The Merriam- 
Webster Dictionary 228-229 (New ed. 2004) defines "education" as "the action or process of educating 
or being educated" and "a field of study dealing with methods of teaching and learning." We are not 
persuaded that promoting a specific religious ideology through the authorship of religious tracts or 
preaching for religious tolerance falls within the definition of education. We do not contest that certain 
religious figures, such as the Pope, have previously engaged in educational activities or, as noted by 
Professor Esposito, that religious organizations have operated institutions of leaming. These examples 
of religious leaders or institutions promoting or providing education do not establish that religious 
occupations fall within the field of education. 
As the petitioner has not established that his 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 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 
have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very hgh standard for individuals seeking 
immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (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 
Page 6 
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. 
According to Part 5 of the petition, the petitioner seeks to classify himself as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a clergyman. As discussed above, that occupation and the duties proposed by the petitioner 
do not fall within the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics. Thus, as we consider the evidence 
below, we will only consider whether it is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5@)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Counsel did not initially claim that the petitioner has a one-time achievement. In 
response to the director's request for additional evidence, however, counsel asserts that the petitioner's 
receipt of the Award for Contribution to Tolerance and Dialogue fiom the United Nations Educational, 
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), claimed previously as a lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized award, is actually a one-time achievement. 
The petitioner submitted a posting about the award on a website dedicated to the petitioner. The 
posting indicates that the award was issued by the Romanian Commission of UNESCO. The award 
was accepted on the petitioner's behalf by representatives of the Journalists and Writers Foundation. 
The translation of another Internet story on the award indicates it was awarded because of the 
petitioner's contribution to education and solidarity. The translated story further states that UNESCO 
supports Ramadan events organized by the Journalists and Authors Foundation, which has close ties to 
the petitioner. A second translated article indicates that the recently deceased Pope and "Romania 
Metropolitan Baptist" also received awards at the same event. 
The director concluded that the record lacked evidence of the award itself, certified translations of the 
foreign language articles as required under 8 C.F.R. 8 1 03.2(b)(3), evidence regarding the circulation of 
the newspapers that covered the event or a statement from UNESCO explaining the number of awards 
issued, the criteria for the award and the number of eligible individuals. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits a copy of the certificate entitled "Award of Merit." The certificate indicates that the award 
recognizes "contributions which led to dialogue and tolerance." The National Commission of Romania 
for UNESCO issued the certificate in October 2005. 
Congress' example of a one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. H.R. Rep. No. 10 1 -723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Significantly, even a lesser 
internationally recognized award could serve to meet only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an 
alien must meet at least three. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5@)(3)(i). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the 
example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality 
of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large and includes a large cash prize. While an 
Page 7 
internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting 
all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the award must be global 
in scope and internationally recognized in the alien's field as one of the top awards in that field. 
The petitioner's "Award of Merit" was issued by the Romanian Commission of UNESCO.~ The record 
is absent evidence that UNESCO as an international body considers this award significant. Despite the 
director's repeated finding, expressed in the request for additional evidence and again in the final 
decision, that the record lacks evidence from UNESCO explaining the awardee selection process, the 
petitioner has not provided such evidence. Based on this failure alone, the petition may not be 
approved. 8 C.F.R. 8 1 03.2(b)(13). Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 
22 I&N Dec. 1 58, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Regl. Comrnr. 1972)). Moreover, the record contains no media coverage of the event outside of 
Turkey, the petitioner's native country. Finally, the Romanian Commission cannot elevate the 
significance of their merit awards by issuing one to an internationally renowned figure such as the late 
Pope. Any entity can decide to issue an award to a famous personality. The record lacks evidence that 
the Vatican considered this honor significant. For example, the record lacks evidence that the Vatican 
sent a commission from Rome to attend the event and receive the certificate. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the merit award from the Romanian 
Commission of UNESCO is an award recognized internationally in the field of education to which the 
most renowned educators or even religious leaders worldwide aspire to win. 
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. Prior to addressing the regulatory criteria, we acknowledge the submission of 
several letters supporting the petition. We will consider these letters below as they relate to the 
regulatory criteria. The opinions of experts in the field, however, while not without weight, cannot 
form the cornerstone of a successll claim of sustained national or international acclaim. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted 
as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). 
However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters fiom experts supporting the petition 
is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. CIS may even give less weight to an opinion that 
is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; See 
2 
 According to UNESCO's own website, http://portal.unesco.org, accessed on March 6, 2008, national 
commissions "are national cooperating bodies set up by the Member States for the purpose of associating 
their governmental and non-governmental bodies with the work of the Organization." Thus, the Romanian 
Commission is not an international UNESCO delegation to Romania but a Romanian body created in 
Romania for the purpose of associating with UNESCO. 
also Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornrnr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague accolades are less persuasive than assertions that relate to the regulatory criteria 
and are supported by objective evidence. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation 
of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the 
petition. An individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce 
unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. 
The regulatory criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) follow. 
Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prim or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the following awards serve to meet this criterion: Award for Contribution 
to Tolerance and Dialogue from the Romanian Commission of UNESCO, selection as an honoree at 
the Peacell Heroes Symposium and the Intersociety Adaptation and Contribution to Peace Award 
fi-om the Kyrgyzstan Spirituality Foundation. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1 988); 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). Some of the 
petitioner's references also mention these awards, but these letters are not from the institutions that 
issued the awards. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comrnr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Cornmr. 
1 972)). 
As stated above, the petitioner has now submitted the merit award from the Romanian Commission of 
UNESCO. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted 
evidence that the petitioner was the subject of a session at the University of Texas, San Antonio 
(UTSA), Peacefbl Heroes Symposium sponsored by the Student Association for Islamic Dialogue. 
This inclusion is not a prize or award. An article posted on www.salsa.net and purportedly reprinted 
from The Muslim World, by at John Carroll University in Cleveland, ~hio,) cites an 
article in the Zaman Daily for the proposition that the Kryrgyzstan Spirituality Foundation awarded the 
petitioner "an honor for his contribution to world peace through his educational efforts in 2004." The 
record also contains evidence that the Turkish Authors' Association (TYB) issued the petitioner a 
"Superior Service'' award for his contributions to Turkish Culture abroad. 
3 
 According to an issue of the Ecumenical and Interfaith Bulletin of the Archdiocese of Melbourne submitted 
by the petitioner, the John Carroll Center was one of three centers for interfaith dialogue created after the 
petitioner's 1998 meeting with the Pope. 
Page 9 
While some of the translated articles suggest that the petitioner's merit award from the Romanian 
Commission of UNESCO recognized contributions to education, the certificate itself reflects that it 
recognizes the petitioner's "contributions which led to dialogue and tolerance." The inclusion of the 
petitioner as a subject of a symposium at UTSA relates to the petitioner's religious ideology. There is 
insufficient evidence regarding the basis of the "award" from the Kryrgyzstan Spirituality Foundation 
or the award from TYB. Thus, the petitioner has not established that any of these "awards" recognize 
excellence in education. 
Moreover, as discussed above, the petitioner has never responded to the director's request for evidence 
regarding the selection process for the UNESCO merit award. On this basis alone, the petition cannot 
be approved. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(13). In addition, we are not persuaded that inclusion as the focus of a 
symposium session is not a nationally recognized prize or award. Finally, the record contains no 
evidence regarding the reputation of the Kryrgyzstan Spirituality Foundation or TYB or the significance 
of their awards. The evidence of this award consists of an article that cites a news article that is not in 
the record. We note that the nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2). The petitioner has not documented that the 
primary evidence of the Kryrgyzstan Spirituality Foundation (the award itself) is unavailable such that 
we can rely on secondary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 8 1 03.2(b)(2)(ii). We note that the petitioner would need 
to demonstrate that secondary evidence is also unavailable in order to rely on affidavits. Id. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he has won a lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of education. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jield for which classzj?cation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Neither counsel nor the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner meets this criterion and the record 
contains no evidence relating to it. 
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 classiJcation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The record amply demonstrates that the petitioner and his ideology have been featured in newspaper 
articles and books. Some of these published materials discuss schools founded by the petitioner's 
followers. We note that some of the materials include information that is not fa~orable.~ For example, 
in her book chapter about the petitioner, notes that the petitioner was charged with, 
among other things, treason in Turkey. The BBC news article also notes that the petitioner was charged 
4 
 Section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act requires that the alien's entry into the United States will substantially 
benefit prospectively the United States. Unfavorable press coverage may, in certain cases, demonstrate that 
the alien will not, in fact, substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
Page 10 
with "plotting to overthrow the country's secular state." A similar article appeared in the New York 
Times. We acknowledge, however, that the Turkish government rescinded the arrest warrant for the 
petitioner in August 2000, although an April 30, 2001 article in the Turkish Daily News notes that the 
petitioner was "living in exile in the United States." An undated article in an unidentified newspaper 
suggests that the petitioner was actually acquitted of the charges. While not all of the published 
material appears in major media, is primarily about the petitioner or is favorable, the record contains 
sufficient favorable published material about the petitioner relating to the establishment of schools that 
we are satisfied that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 3 participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of specifcation for which classiJcation is sought. 
Counsel references the petitioner's role as founder and honorary president for various organizations to 
meet this criterion. We find that the evidence relates to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3)(viii) 
rather than this criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Thus, this evidence will be discussed 
below as it relates to the petitioner's leading and critical roles with various organizations. 
Evidence of the alienk original scientz&, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The record includes numerous letters and articles relating to the petitioner's promotion of interfaith 
dialogue. For example, an adjunct professor at the George Washington University and a 
former CIA officer, praises the petitioner's contributions as a "spiritual leader, guiding the practice of 
hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of Muslims throughout the world, and his role as a 
religious leader, shaping the activities and actions of an active, moderate Muslim community that 
promotes tolerance and cooperation with other religious traditions and cultures." also affirms 
the petitioner's contributions to interfaith dialogue, including the petitioner's 1998 meeting with the 
Pope. The remaining reference letters include similar statements. The record contains evidence that 
the petitioner met with the last Pope and other religious figures. We are not persuaded, however, that 
this evidence relates to the petitioner's contributions to the field of education. 
Nevertheless, the record also contains evidence that the petitioner's followers have established 
numerous apparently secular schools in Turkey and elsewhere in Europe. - a 
former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, asserts that the petitioner "has made major contributions to 
education in Turkey and Central Asia." 
 elaborates that the petitioner's 
movement "raised the bar for academic ex 
 hasize moral choices, interfaith 
cooperation, and peace and tolerance throughout the world." 
 asserts that the petitioner's 
movement, a "loose network that shares similar values" has established "several hundred schools 
throughout Europe and Asia'' which provide education to children from different ethnicities and 
cultural backgrounds. - chief Advisor of former President 
petitioner created "an educational system that promotes the principles 
peacefulness" and has produced "a new generation of Muslims, who possess the ability to think 
Page 11 
critically and who value tolerance in a multicultural, global society." The petitioner has also been 
recognized for these schools and the published materials about his movement favorably discuss these 
schools at length. Thus, while the schools founded by the petitioner are not without critics and, as will 
be discussed below, the schools are independently founded by the petitioner's followers, we are 
persuaded that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
We must presume that the word "scholarly" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. 
We distinguish "scholarly" from "popular" and interpret the word "scholarly" to imply that authored 
materials submitted to meet this criterion must be aimed at an audience of scholars rather than the 
general public. While we do not question that there have been scholarly analyses of the petitioner's 
movement, it is less clear that the petitioner's writings themselves are scholarly theological treatises. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner has authored numerous books and articles. In response to the 
director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted several reference letters, including 
letters from academic theologians, attesting to the petitioner's impact on interfaith academic programs. 
As discussed above, we do not contest that the petitioner has made contributions of major significance 
in education. At issue for this criterion, however, is whether the petitioner's articles, books and book 
chapters can be characterized as "scholarly" in and of themselves. 
The record reveals that the petitioner's writings are predominantly religious tracts5 expressing the 
petitioner's own religious ideology, with minimal scholarly analysis of education or even religion. We 
acknowledge that ~Gher 
 of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America asserts 
that the petitioner has "been able to unify the ideology and philosophies of East and West in an 
unprecedented manner" and examines the poetry of Rumi. Father 
 further asserts that the 
petitioner's articles have been required reading in political culture courses. 
 This fact is not 
determinative. For example, a class studying the founders of the United States might be required to 
read the writings of Benjamin Franklin. That assignment would not transform those writings into 
scholarly treatises on politics and democracy. It is not clear that the petitioner's written work is aimed 
at academic scholars rather than his religious followers and others interested in his ideology (including 
students studying various ideological movements). Consistent with this conclusion, a 
senior political consultant at the RAND Corporation, asserts that the petitioner's writings express the 
petitioner's "commentaries on Islam, on Sufi mysticism and the place of knowledge and science within 
Islam, and the vital role of education for all Muslims." (Emphasis added.) 
 than notes that 
there have been academic studies of the petitioner's "thought." 
5 
In counsel's September 10, 2007 brief in support of the petition filed in the alien's behalf pursuant to 
section 101(a)(27)(C) of the Act, page 8, he asserts that the petitioner continues to write "religious tracts." 
We find that this characterization of the petitioner's writings is consistent with the record. 
Page 12 
Finally, none of the petitioner's articles or books appear to constitute scholarly works analyzing the 
field of education or any of the other fields identified in section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he has authored scholarly articles in the field 
of education in professional or major trade publications in the field of education or other major media. 
Evidence ofthe display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
While counsel has asserted that the petitioner's speeches serve to meet this criterion, the petitioner does 
not seek classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. As this criterion is limited, by the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(vii), to the arts, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner is the founder of a large religious movement in Turkey with followers beyond the 
borders of that country. The movement has been the subject of considerable media attention, much of 
it favorable. While the petitioner has clearly performed in a leading or critical role for this movement, 
it is primarily a religious movement. Thus, the petitioner's role with this movement is not indicative of 
or consistent with extraordinary ability in education. The petitioner's role as "honorary president'' is 
not necessarily indicative of an actual leadership role the petitioner performs. For example, - 
President of the Rumi Forum, asserts that the petitioner, the forum's honorary president, has 
mc relationship with the Rumi Forum." 
We acknowledge that the petitioner's followers, inspired by the petitioner's philosophy, have 
developed hundreds of schools withn Turkey and beyond its borders. We have already acknowledged 
the petitioner's contributions to education in Turkey and other countries above. To presume that 
meeting one criterion necessitates meeting another criterion would negate the regulatory requirement 
that an alien meet at least three of the regulatory criteria. At issue for this criterion is the official role 
the petitioner performed in establishing these schools. 
asserts that the "followers" of the petitioner's movement have opened "about 600 schools 
across the world in more than 90 countries." 
 professor of Islamic History at Georgetown 
University, asserts that the petitioner "provided inspiration for schools in many countries and these 
schools provide some of the most effective means for combating destructive religious extremism." 
Similarly, 
 a professor at Dartmouth College, asserts that the petitioner's 
commitment to education "has inspired a network of primary and secondary schools and at least one 
university that provide comprehensive and rigorous training equal in scope to the best of the liberal arts 
tradition in the United States." 
 ormer Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of 
Turkey, asserts that '‘people 
 [sic] of [the petitioner] established hundreds of 
Page 13 
schools through out [sic] the world." Former President of the Council of Higher 
Education of the Republic of Turkey, states: 
Although these schools are referred [to] as [the petitioner's movement] Schools, they do 
not have any organic relationships amongst each other. They are connected with one 
another in only one way, which is that the people who started these schools are touched 
by the same message uttered by the very person who is the topic of this letter. This is 
the only connection they have to each other and [the petitioner]. 
The record does not suggest that the petitioner designed specific curricula for these schools, as opposed 
to promoting the teaching of science in general, or created a specific educational philosophy such as, 
for example, the Montessori educational scheme. The record is absent evidence that the petitioner is 
otherwise performing a leading role in the establishment and management of these schools. Rather, his 
general teachings have inspired his followers to establish these schools independently. We reiterate 
that his inspiration was considered sufficient to meet the contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(v), but we are not persuaded that the petitioner plays a sufficiently leading or critical role 
for these schools such that we can conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
Neither counsel nor the petitioner has claimed to meet this criterion and the record contains no evidence 
relating to it. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the pe$orming arts, as shown by box oflce receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk or video sales. 
Neither counsel nor the petitioner has claimed to meet this criterion and the record contains no evidence 
relating to it. 
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 the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himerself in the 
field of education to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of this field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner is a well-known religious figure, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements in education set him significantly above almost all others in that field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
Page 14 
Prospective Employment in the United States 
As stated above, section 204(b)(l)(A)(ii) requires that the petitioner seek to enter the United States to 
continue working in his area of expertise. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
No offer of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States 
nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must be 
accompanied by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue 
work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) fkom prospective 
ernployer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
fi-om the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her 
work in the United States. 
The petitioner did not initially submit such evidence. In response to the director's request for additional 
evidence, the petitioner submitted a personal affidavit. In his affidavit, the petitioner noted that while 
in the United States, he has been working toward interfaith dialogue though authoring articles and 
providing guidance to "fellow scholars." He notes that he is the honorary president of the Institute for 
Interfaith Dialog, the Niagara Foundation and the Rumi Forum. He expresses his intention "to continue 
performing scholarly research, advising other academics and consulting on conferences about my 
work." We note that the only evidence relating to the field of education found sufficient above is the 
founding of schools by the petitioner's followers. He does not assert that he will continue to promote 
education in this manner in the United States. 
As discussed above, we do not find that the petitioner's written work constitutes scholarly work in the 
field of education. In light of the above, even if we found that the petitioner meets three criteria in the 
field of education, he does not purport to be coming to the United States to continue working in that 
field. As also discussed above, the petitioner indicated on the Form 1-1 40 petition, filed on November 
21, 2006, more than seven years after the petitioner entered the United States, that his occupation was 
that of a "clergyman." We note that the "about the author" section of one of the petitioner's books 
indicates that he retired from formal teaching duties in 198 1. We reiterate that a petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an apparently 
deficient petition conform to CIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. In light 
of the above, the petitioner has not established that he intends to continue working in the field of 
education. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.