dismissed EB-1A Case: Social Work / Women'S Rights

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. ~itiZiXIShiD and Immigration Services 
*&,i.;".;.o ('qb delstcd to 
IL-... -.-<) L-~*J 
OfJice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
. -; $c ,1~~ ,I.:e:.:;rreoted 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
PC; , -8 - " - ., 
f- .%-.-,-.-I 
1. 
it;va>sial 0: :.,-, . O:L>L pT1"JW 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
pn~l1: CQW 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 07 067 50812 
 MAR 3 1 2009 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability hsuant 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. 5 103.5 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
/&4d9puc 
,q John . 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 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. The 
director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
required for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 
 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to hlfill the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such 
evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of the alien's field of endeavor. 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. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Initially and in response to a Request for Evidence ("RFE) dated February 1, 2008, the petitioner submitted 
excerpts from a book that she edited, pamphlets that she organized or prepared, a newsletter that she edited and 
contributed to, membership letters, news articles, an invitation to join AsiaPacific Who's Who, award 
certificates, her curriculum vitae, information about the organizations with which she is or was involved, the 
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women ("CEDAW'), a diploma, event 
invitations, verification of university employment, certificates of election and appointment of political positions, 
and letters of recommendation. The evidence submitted, counsel's contentions, and the director's decision are 
addressed in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner 
does not claim eligibility under any criteria not discussed below. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner claimed eligibility under this criterion throua her receiut of the Best Lady Jaycee of the Year 
- 
award in 1982, the ' award by theANepalese  ini is ti of ~ome Affairs in 
1996 (also referred to by the petitioner as the Silver Jublee Medal), a certificate of participation with the Susma 
Koirala Memorial   rust in 1997, a certificate of participation in a seminar held by the Nepali Congress Central 
Communication Department in 1998, and a certificate of participation with a rally held by the Nepali Congress 
District Working Committee in 2002. The certificates of participation are not awards or prizes, but instead 
amount to recognition of the petitioner's involvement in the event. The petitioner submitted no evidence that 
participation in any of these events conveys national or international recognition. 
As it relates to the petitioner's receipt of awards, on appeal, counsel states that the Best Lady Jaycee award 
demonstrates the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion because of an accompanying letter stating that the 
award is national in scope. This criterion, however, requires that the award be nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence, not that it is awarded by an organization that is national or international or chooses 
the recipient from among a national or international pool. The petitioner submitted no evidence that the Best 
Lady Jaycee award recipient receives any sort of national or international recognition. For example, the 
petitioner did not submit secondary evidence, such as news articles or letters from sponsoring organizations, 
documenting the prestige associated with this award that would indicate its national or international recognition 
as an award for excellence in the field. Similarly, no evidence appears in the record about the Silver Jublee 
Medal to indicate that it is a nationally or internationally recognized award or prize for excellence in the field. 
In addition, these two awards were given in 1982 and 1996, i.e. over a decade prior to the filing of this petition, 
so cannot evidence the requisite sustained acclaim in the field as required for this highly restrictive 
classification. 
For all of the above reasons, the petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility under this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in theBeld 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. 
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, proficiency certifications, 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. Furthermore, 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 evidence of her membership in the National Women's Commission ("NWC"), 
which counsel states is the most highly recognized association in Nepal. The petitioner submitted the rules 
concerning the "Establishment and Formation of the Commission" which states that the King appoints 
members of the NWC based on recommendations made by the prime minister, chief justice, opposition party 
leader, a high ranking woman in government, and the most senior member of Parliament. The 
recommendations for membership are made from a pool of women over 35 years old who have served in the 
area of women's rights for at least 10 years, and who do not have any criminal convictions. The membership 
criteria do not require that the nominee have made an outstanding achievement nor do they indicate that any 
of the political officials who decide the members of the NWC are national or international experts in the field 
of social work or women's rights. Moreover, it does not appear that the petitioner was a member of the 
NWC at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(1),(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 1. & N. Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 
1971). Specifically, the record contains a letter from Youdha Shah, Acting Chief Secretary, dated April 2002 
which indicates that the petitioner was appointed to the NWC on March 7, 2002. However, the rules 
submitted for the NWC indicate that the tenure of members "shall be two years." Accordingly, it appears 
that the petitioner ceased being a member in 2004, nearly three years prior to the filing of the petition. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence of her membership in the Susma Koirala Memorial Trust, the Nepal 
University Teachers' Association, Amnesty International, the Research Board of Advisors of The American 
Biographic Institute, and the Central Policy and Program Committee of Nepal Women Association. She 
submitted evidence that she holds a leadership position with Amnesty International of Nepal and the 
Teachers' Association. The information submitted about these organizations does not indicate that 
membership is predicated upon outstanding achievement or that membership applications are judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the field. For example, even though the letter submitted from 
the Nepal University Teachers' Association states that the petitioner has made a "remarkable contribution to 
enhance academic activities" and has been actively involved, the letter does not state that those contributions 
or involvement were required for membership in the Association. Similarly, the information submitted about 
Amnesty International of Nepal states that the general membership votes on who will be a part of the 
executive committee; the information does not state that only those with outstanding achievements can either 
become a member of the body as a whole or of the executive committee, nor does it state that the general 
electorate is made up of recognized experts in the field. Instead, the website indicates that any Nepali citizen 
over age 16 and "committed to contribute to the advancement of mission of [Amnesty International]" can be 
a member. In addition, it does not appear that the petitioner was a member of NUTA or the National 
Executive Committee of Amnesty International at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $9 103.20>)(1),(12); Matter of 
Katigbak at 45. Specifically, the record contains a letter from Professor Bhupti Dhakal, president of NUTA, 
which indicates that the petitioner served as a member of NUTA fiom 1997-1999 and a letter from Krishna 
Pahadi, chairperson of Amnesty International Nepal, which states that the petitioner served on the National 
Executive Committee from 1997-1999. Accordingly, it appears that the petitioner ceased being a member 
well before the filing of her petition. 
For all of the above reasons, the petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility under this criterion. 
(iii) 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 classzjkation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 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.' 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion through articles appearing in Nari Magazine, Manchitra Magazine, 
and Kurnari Magazine. First, the translations do not demonstrate that the entire articles were translated, as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Instead, the petitioner has submitted only excerpts or abstracts of the 
articles. In addition, the translations do not include the author of the article's name as required by 8 C.F.R. 8 
204.5(h)(3)(iii). The plain language of this criterion requires both that the entire article be translated and that 
the translation include the author of the material. Second, the petitioner presented no evidence that any of 
these magazines constitute a professional or major trade publication or other major media. Counsel for the 
petitioner points to a letter issued by the Library of Congress to prove that these publications constitute major 
media, however, that letter relays the name of the publisher for Nari Magazine. The letter does not contain 
information attesting to Nari Magazine as major media such as, for example, by providing circulation or 
distribution numbers. The petitioner also submitted a letter from Gagadish Poudel of the Press Council 
Nepal, which states that the three magazines "fall almost under 'A' grade and wide [sic] circulated." This 
nebulous statement is insufficient to establish that any of the three publications constitute major media. 
Lastly, only the article appearing in Manchitra Magazine is properly considered under this criterion as the 
other articles were authored by the petitioner instead of being about her. Those other articles will be 
considered in the discussion of the petitioner's eligibility under criterion (vi) below. 
Finally, although the petitioner also claimed eligibility under this criterion by virtue of her inclusion in the 
AsiaIPacific Who's Who, appearing as one of thousands, or even hundreds of other successful individuals in 
a frequently published directory is not evidence of published material about the petitioner in major media nor 
is it indicative of national acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility under this criterion. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an alliedjeld of speciJication for which classijication is sought. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion due to her service on the monitoring and evaluation team for the 
Social Welfare Council. Council claims in his brief on appeal that as "evaluate" can mean "judge," the 
petitioner's work "judging the outcomes and progress of the projects carried out by [this organization]" conveys 
eligibility under this criterion. First, neither the letter from the Social Welfare Council member secretary nor the 
Notice establishing the Social Welfare Council includes information about the petitioner's duties as part of the 
monitoring and evaluation team nor do either of these sources state that any member of the Social Welfare 
Council was engaged in judging any competition. Counsel for the petitioner highlighted certain passages of the 
Notice establishing the Council which state that the Council reviews project proposals sent by foreign 
governments, other organizations, and individuals trying to get government assistance. No evidence in the 
record indicates that the petitioner takes part in evaluating these project proposals nor is there evidence as to the 
criteria applicable to these project proposals to indicate how judging is to take place. 
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. 
The petitioner also claims to meet this criterion through her service on the interview board of Mahendra 
Multiple Campus ("MMC"), Tribhuvan University and the University's "monitoring and evaluation team." The 
letter fiom the Campus Chief of MMC indicates that members of the interview board were responsible for 
deciding who should be hired pending "approval from Tribhuvan University." The letter from the Deputy 
Controller of the University stated that in her duties as a member of the "monitoring and evaluation team," the 
petitioner conducted and monitored exams in the mid-western region in 2001. Evidence of the petitioner's 
participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of whether the judging position demonstrates, reflects, or 
is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a national competition for top scientists is of far greater 
probative value than judging a regional youth or student competition. According to the information provided, 
any decision made by the "judges" serving on the interview board was subject to approval by the University. 
The only evidence regarding how the interview board members were chosen indicates that "[tlhe members are 
appointed on the basis of their performance and experience. Each member should have a minimum of 15 years 
of service to serve as an expert in the Board." No evidence was submitted regarding how the petitioner was 
chosen for her position on the monitoring and evaluation team. Regardless, the fact that the petitioner judged 
the appointment of new teachers or that she monitored exams is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner 
has judged the work of others in her claimed field of social work. Moreover, the petitioner's service on this 
board and the evaluation team is not indicative of the sustained acclaim required for this classification as both 
occurred in the late 90s or early 2000s, at least 7 years prior to the filing of the petition. 
For all these reasons, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions 
of major signijicance in the field. 
Initially, counsel cited the petitioner's involvement in a variety of conferences held by nonprofit and 
philanthropic organizations. In response to the RFE, counsel explained that the petitioner made an original 
contribution of major significance through her participation in the international convention of CEDAW in 
2004 and her subsequent advocacy of the issues contained in the Convention upon her return to Nepal. 
Without documentary evidence to support the claim that the petitioner was involved in a discussion about 
CEDAW at the convention or that she advocated for the adoption of CEDAW or its principles within Nepal, 
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 ri.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). Further, participation in conferences either as a trainer or a student does not constitute a contribution 
as the petitioner did not show how such participation impacted her field as a whole. 
The petitioner also submitted five letters of recommendation which we will consider in support of her claim 
for eligibility under this criterion. However, whle letters of recommendation provide relevant information 
about an alien's experience and accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility 
under this criterion because they do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in her field 
beyond the limited number of individuals with whom she has worked directly. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Trust "conduct[s] activities in the fields like sports, education and skill training for women" and that the 
petitioner "[took] the leadership of the organization and she stated working as a founder president with full 
enthusiasm." The letter fromof the NWC, stated that the petitioner "visited some fifteen 
districts, including some of the most remote" in her coordination of a "women's advancement and a prioritized 
action program" and that the petitioner "took care of all the case work of women who had been abused by their 
husbands, fathers, and in-laws, helping to register court cases and follow-up actions." The February 19, 2008 
letter from of Tribhuvan University, stated that the petitioner "conduct[ed] and 
monitor[ed] the Diploma Level Exams of the mid-western region in the year 2001" which was difficult due to 
the Maoist movement creating chaos during that time. , professor at Tribhuvan University, wrote 
in a February 27, 2008 letter that the petitioner has an "exceptionally high level of commitment, motivation, 
leadership and intellectual abilities" and that "[slhe tirelessly advocated and struggled for the rights of the 
marginalized and discriminated people, women in particular." , ambassador of Nepal, wrote 
that the petitioner "has . . . been recognized as a prominent women activist, who struggled for the human rights 
in Nepal." In doing so, the petitioner has "empower[ed] women in Nepal, whose social status has been lower in 
society owing to various reasons" and that she "has been meaningfully involved in social sector for more than 
15 yrs." Although all of these letters speak highly of the petitioner's contribution to society through her social 
work and activism, they do not state that the petitioner made an original contribution of major significance to the 
field of social work such that the field of social work has changed as a result of the petitioner's actions. 
The petitioner also claims that she helped author the Notice establishing the NWC, however, she submitted no 
evidence showing how she participated or what impact her actions had. 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 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I. & 
N. Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
For all of the above stated reasons, the petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility under this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner provided evidence that she wrote an article for and served on the Editorial Board of the Voice for 
Justice newsletter; wrote "Women Commission Usefulness and Effectiveness," which appeared in Nari 
Magazine; wrote an article entitled "Is Democracy in Danger?'which appeared in The Weekly Mirror; and 
wrote an article entitled "It's certain to become Woman Prime Minister in Future," which appeared in Kumari 
Magazine. As noted above, the petitioner submitted no evidence about any of these publications to show that 
they are professional or major trade publications or other major media. In addition, the petitioner did not show 
how these articles relate to her field of social work as the articles focus on politics and reports of events and 
other occurrences. 
Chronicle of Events for the Women's National Festival; and prepared a booklet about the Trust's activities. She 
also submitted various pamphlets and indicated that she wrote or assisted with these pamphlets although they 
were not attributed to her. The petitioner presented no evidence that any of these pamphlets appeared in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted papers entitled "The Role of Civil Society for Good Governance and Peace" and 
"People in Good Governance Planning in Regional Basis: Strategic, Mechanism and Implementation7' however, 
these "extractions" are not accompanied by certified translations as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), so we 
are unable to evaluate these documents. She also submitted a draft of her paper "A Celebration of Global 
Imagination: Listen to the Future." The petitioner submitted no evidence to show that this paper was ever 
published or that it otherwise appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 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. 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1),(12); Matter of 
Katigbak at 49. Counsel claimed in the response to the RFE that the petitioner met this criterion by virtue of 
her assistance in writing the Notice establishing the NWC. First, this Notice was not attributed to the petitioner. 
Second, the petitioner submitted no evidence that the Notice was published in any professional publication or 
other major media. 
For all of the above reasons, the petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility under this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien haspei$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish the nature of her role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. Where an alien has a leading or critical 
role for a section of a distinguished organization or establishment, the petitioner must establish the reputation of 
that section independent of the organization itself. 
The petitioner claimed eligibility under this criterion by virtue of her participation with the NWC, the Nepali 
Congress Party, the Shanker Memorial Trust, as the Environmental Advisor to the Mayor of Nepalgunj 
Municipality, as coordinator of the Midwest region of the Nepal Women Association, as a lecturer with 
Mehendra Multiple Campus of Tribhuvan University, and as vice president of the Cricket Association of Nepal 
("CAN). As stated above, the petitioner presented no evidence which demonstrates that her work in politics or 
in the English department at the University relates to her field of social work. On appeal, counsel states that the 
petitioner's involvement with CAN fits within the general definition of social work because of her nomination 
to a position with a high profile as a woman and because sports generally improve the lives of people. This 
tenuous connection asserted by counsel is insufficient to show any true connection between CAN and social 
work as almost any organization with almost any purpose could be considered social work under counsel's 
definition. The petitioner did not present any objective evidence that her nomination to a position within CAN 
actually increased the visibility of women or in any other manner aided people's lives or improved the standing 
of women within the country. 
Even assuming that the petitioner's work with these political organizations relates to her field of social work, 
she did not present evidence that these organizations enjoy distinguished reputations. No evidence was included 
regarding any of these organizations' backgrounds, standing in the community or world, or any other aspect of 
their reputations. On appeal, counsel stated that the political party, CAN, and the NWC are national 
organizations and that the NWC members are handpicked by the Nepali government. Counsel points to a 
February 8,2004 letter fkom as evidence of the NWC's reputation. While this letter provides 
relevant information, it cannot by itself establish the alien's eligibility under the criterion because it does not 
demonstrate the author's knowledge of the Council reputation Gdepkdent of her work with the petitioner. As 
Page 9 
previously indicated, even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an 
immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence. The petitioner did not submit 
any documentation fiom independent sources regarding the reputation of the Council, CAN, or the Nepali 
Congress Party. 
In addition, the petitioner failed to submit evidence showing that she played a leading or critical role with any of 
these organizations. The states that the petitioner "was by far the most competent" 
Council member and that achieved through the petitioner's cooperation including by 
helping to recover a woman who had been kidnapped by her family for marrying a second time and helped with 
a consulting initiative with the Canadian government. This letter does not state how these initiatives firther the 
purpose of the Council or otherwise constitute a leading or critical role for that organization as opposed to 
role as head of the Council. Similarly, the petitioner presented evidence of several positions that she 
held with the Nepali Congress Party, but she submitted no evidence regarding the committees with which she 
was affiliated or how her role with those committees served as a leading or critical role for the political party as 
a whole. Presumably, the Party has a variety of committees with a variety of members; the petitioner submitted 
no evidence differentiating herself from the other committee chairs or officers of the overall Party. The letter 
from stated that the petitioner helped to set up the Trust and its works and that the Trust would not 
have been as successful without the help of the petitioner. The petitioner presented no evidence regarding her 
role with any of the other organizations. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJcantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in thejeld. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims to meet this criterion by virtue of her salary of $24,058.73 as compared to the 
United States State Department Country Profile which states that the per capita income for Nepal in 2005-06 
was $322. The plain language of the criterion requires that the petitioner show that she receives a high salary in 
relation to others in her field. Therefore, the annual per capita income displayed in the State Department report 
is irrelevant even if that information had been included in this record. The petitioner included no evidence 
regarding how much other social workers earn per annum or any other evidence to demonstrate how her annual 
salary compares to other social workers in Nepal so as to demonstrate that her stated salary is considered 
significantly high in relation to others in her field. It is further noted that nearly 113 of the petitioner's stated 
salary is attributed to her employment as a lecturer at Tribhuvan University. The remainder of her salary is 
made up of "consultancy fees," "tuition fees," and "project assignments." It is unclear from this breakdown, 
which, if any part of her salary is actually related to her claimed field of social work. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
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 petitioner's achievements set her significantly 
above almost all others in her field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) 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.