dismissed EB-1A Case: Sports Journalism

'ldentifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PlffiUCCOPY 
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
JUL 1 9 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit}' 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (1\1\0) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 20g0 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)( I )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.c. § 1153(b)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1·290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~1f-
Perry Rhcw 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeaL The appeal will be 
dismissed, 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" as a sports journalist and 
producer pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U's,C 
§ l1S3(b)(1)(A), The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 CF.R. § 204.S(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
The petitioner's priority date established by the petition filing date is January 4,2011. On January 14, 
2011, the director served the petitioner with a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the 
petitioner's response to the RFE, the director issued her decision on February 24, 2011. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a brief with no new documentary evidence. Several sections of the appellate brief are 
almost verbatim from counsel's response to the RFE and add nothing new to the record. For the 
reasons discussed below, the AAO upholds the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has 
not established his eligibility for the classification sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if --
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 WIst Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. [d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USc/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "tinal merits determination." [d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sutIicient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has tailed to satisfY the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." [d. at lin (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. [d. 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Application of the Kazarian Analysis 
Counsel's appellate brief puts forth an assertion that the director "erred in denying the underlying 1-140 
Petition in that it failed to apply the appropriate analysis pursuant to [the] Kazarian [decision]. Counsel 
failed to support this assertion with any additional discussion or examples. 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). The unsupported assertions of counsel in a brief are not evidence and thus are not 
entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984). 
Additionally, the director referenced the Kazarian decision and applied the two-part analysis 
specifically identified within the Kazarian decision. As such, the AAO does not concur with counsel's 
assertion regarding the director's failure to adhere to the analysis identified in the Kazarian decision. 
Regardless, the AAO will apply the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in this decision. 
B. Preponderance of the Evidence Standard of Proof 
Counsel's appellate brief also indicated that the director failed to apply the appropriate standard of proof 
to both the individual criteria as well as within the final merits determination. The record does not 
support counsel's assertion that the director held the petitioner's evidence to an elevated standard 
beyond that which is required by most administrative immigration cases; the preponderance of the 
evidence standard of proof. The most recent precedent decision related to the preponderance of the 
evidence standard of proof is Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). This decision, and 
this standard, focuses on the factual nature of a claim related to evidence; not whether a claim satisfies a 
regulatory requirement. Id. at 376. The preponderance of the evidence standard does not preclude 
USCIS from evaluating the evidence. The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence 
alone but by its quality. Id. The final determination of whether the evidence meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation lies with uscrs, not with counsel nor with the petitioner. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (finding that the appropriate entity to 
determine eligibility is USCIS in a scenario whereby an advisory opinion or statement is not consistent 
with other information that is part of the record). As the director determined that the submitted 
evidence failed to satisfy the regulatory requirements, and did not question the truthfulness of the 
petitioner's claims, the AAO concludes that the director did not violate the appropriate standard of 
proof. According to this analysis, the AAO concurs with the director's ultimate conclusion that the 
evidence does not establish the petitioner's eligibility. 
C. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation 0/ the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that the alien was the 
recipient of the prizes or the awards (in the plural). The clear regulatory language requires that the 
prizes or the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulation 
also requires the petitioner to submit evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence in the field 
of endeavor rather than simply for participating in or contributing to an event or to a group. The 
petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided a photograph of himself with two awards, two letters referencing the claimed 
awards, and information related to the The director determined that the petitioner failed 
to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The photograph does not demonstrate that the awards in the photograph are the awards that the 
petitioner purportedly received, nor does it demonstrate that the petitioner was the recipient of the 
. awards. The letter from indicated that the 
was the recipient of both awards while 
indicated that the petitioner won the two awards. The peltitil:Jm~r nro~'idE~d 
conflicting information. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record 
by independent objective evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Any attempt 
to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. [d. As the petitioner has provided evidence 
containing conflicting, relevant claims, and has not provided documentary evidence to clarify which 
form of evidence contains the correct facts, neither form of evidence noted will carry any evidentiary 
weight within the present proceedings. 
website, ___ received the" 
we~nformation related 
. On appeal, counsel claims that 
the was unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of 19 I&N Dec. 
at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N ' website 
confirms the director's found no 
information related to the Where the 
, The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
, See bl.tl.~jiwww.tclIyawards.com/winncrsilistm-E&pag:eNum winncrs-l&totaIRows winncrs-,52&cvcnL 
=ll&~1!tcg()l)'=l&award=S, accessed on July 10, 2012, a copy of which is incorporated into the record of 
proceeding. 
Page 6 
regulations require specific, objective evidence of achievements, such as awards, the primary evidence 
of such awards would be copies of the awards themselves. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2)(i) 
provides that the non-existence or unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of 
ineligibility. According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary 
evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only 
where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the affidavits. 
~mary evidence the received the for _ 
_ and thIs case, 
while the petitioner letters, are not to submit 
any documentary evidence demonstrating that primary evidence and secondary evidence do not exist or 
cannot be obtained. 
Additionally, the director determined that the petitioner failed to provide evidence that the awards were 
nationally or internationally recognized. The petitioner failed to address this regulatory requirement on 
appeal. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field fiJr which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized natiollal 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that he is a member of more than one association in his field. Second, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that the associations require outstanding achievements (in the plural) of their members. 
The petitioner must also demonstrate that the associations utilize nationally or internationally 
recognized experts to judge the achievements of prospective members. It is insufficient for the 
association itself to determine if the achievements were outstanding, unless nationally or internationally 
recognized experts in the petitioner's field, who represent the association, make this determination. The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided evidence of membership in two associations. The director determined that the 
petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
~tioner's 
_and in the 
petitioner provided supporting documentation from Wikipedia. As 
separate criterion, with regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about 
reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site: See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael 
Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (Sth Cir. 200S). The petitioner failed to submit evidence of the membership 
~ for these associations. ?n appeal, counsel attests to the prestige of ~ and asserts that 
_selects members by lllvltatlOn only. Counsel does not rebut the dlfectors conclusIOn that 
Wikipedia is not reliable. At issue is not the prestige of the associations, which may be earned for 
reasons other than membership requirements, or even whether membership is by invitation only. At 
issue are the actual membership requirements and who judges admission. As the record does not 
contain the bylaws or other official documentation of the association's membership criteria, the AAO 
carmot evaluate whether the petitioner's memberships are qualifYing. Thus, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner also failed to provide 
evidence that nationally or internationally recognized experts in the field judge admittance to either 
association. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of 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 classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility. Specifically, the director concluded that radio broadcasts are not "published" 
material and that the material was not "about" the petitioner. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest 
the director's tindings for this criterion or offer additional arguments beyond simply restating the 
positions put forth in the RFE response. More specifically, counsel does not address the director's 
conclusion that the published material is not about the petitioner. The AAO, therefore, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 
2(05); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 47118S5 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2(11) 
(the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). A passing reference without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that ground on 
appeal. Desravines v. u.s. Atty. Gen., 343 Fed.Appx. 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2(09) citing Tedder v. 
F.M.c. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir.1979). Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted 
qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
4 Online content from Wikipedia is suhject to the following general disclaimer, "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO 
GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a 
voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. 
The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that 
nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with 
complete, accurate or reliable information. . .. Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found 
here. The content of any given article may recently have heen changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose 
opllllOn docs not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. See 
hllp:i/!;ll,)Yi.j<.il'elija.Qrgiwi!<j/wij<ipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on July 10, 2012, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 8 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of Ihe work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is SOIlRht. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the incidental review duties involved in his position as a coordinator did not amount to 
participating as "a judge" of the work of others. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments beyond simply restating the positions put forth 
in the RFE response. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda 401 F.3d at 
1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9; Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 Fed.Appx. at 
435. Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions (in the plural) in his field. These 
contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the 
contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final 
requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather 
than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3,d Cir. 1995) 
quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2(03). Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner based his eligibility under this criterion on the fact that he gives back to his community 
within his field. The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner failed to identify any significant impact he has had in his field through giving back to his 
community. The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments beyond simply restating the positions put forth 
in the RFE response. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda 401 F.3d at 
1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9; Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 Fed.Appx. at 
435. Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in thefield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy through the submission 
of evidence. The first is that the petitioner is an author of schOlarly articles (in the plural) in his field in 
which he intends to engage once admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. 
Scholarly articles generally report on original research or experimentation, involve scholarly 
investigations, contain substantial footnotes or bibliographies, and are peer reviewed. Additionally, 
while not required, scholarly articles are oftentimes intended for and written for learned persons in the 
field who possess a profound knowledge of the field. The second element is that the scholarly articles 
appear in one of the following: a professional publication, a major trade publication, or in a form of 
major media. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying each of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided several of his sports related articles. The director determined that the petitioner 
failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, counsel claims that although the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) plainly requires the authorship of "scholarly articles," the MO should 
consider the petitioner's evidence as comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). This 
decision discusses comparable evidence separately below. 
American universities have generally accepted standards for scholarly articles. For example, the article 
must: 
• Be written by researchers, professors, or students in the respective field; 
• Contain the author's credentials; 
• Contain original research; 
• Be peer-reviewed or refereed; 
• Always contain a bibliography or references; 
• Usually will be published in research or academic journals; 
• Have an audience of those with knowledge of the subject, such as experts or scholars; and 
• Utilize the vocabulary of the disciplineS 
The characterizes scholarly articles as: 
[W]ritten by researchers, professors, or students and are published in research or 
academic journals. Scholarly articles (also known as peer-reviewed or refereed articles) 
have the highest level of credibility because they have been put through a rigorous 
"See hltp:! /www.uI11uc.edu(library!libhow(artieles.cfm; http://www.lib.umd.edu/guidcsijournals.html#5cho I"..dy; 
h tlp;//www.urnuc.eduilibrary/libhow/scholarlvjournals.cfm; h ttp;/ Iwww.library.american.cuu/tutorial/typc4.htm!; 
http:((olinuris.library.eornell.edu(rel!research(skill20.html; hllp:(/www.csupomona.edu/-ecgibson/j()urnal.hlml; and 
hllp:( (librarv. ucLcdu (Rosen/Seh" 13 r1v .pdf. 
Page 10 
system of review as other experts in the author's field of research check the article for 
accuracy." 
The fact that the petItIOner has authored an article on a topic within his field is insufficient to 
demonstrate that he meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. While the regulation 
does not require that the published material appear only in a professional or a major trade 
publication, it does require that it be a scholarly article. Therefore, published material appearing in 
major media should also contain the aforementioned characteristics. As the petitioner's articles were 
not peer-reviewed and do not contain citing references, the submitted articles do not meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
USCIS may not utilize novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1221, citing Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 758 
(9th Cir.2(08). Based on the fact that the petitioner has not authored articles that are scholarly in nature, 
he has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence olthe di.lplay olthe alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. The plain language 
requirements of this criterion requires that the work in the field is directly attributable to the alien. 
Additionally, the interpretation that 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is 
longstanding and has been upheld by a federal district court. Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CY-820-
ECR-RJJ at *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding an interpretation that performances by a performing 
artist do not fall under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii». The alien's work also must have been displayed at 
an artistic exhibitions or showcases (in the plural). While neither the regulation nor existing precedent 
speak to what constitutes an exhibition or a showcase, Merriam- Webster's online dictionary defines 
exhibition as, "a public showing (as of works of art).,,7 Merriam-Webster's online dictionary also 
defines showcase as, "a setting, occasion, or medium for exhibiting something or someone especially in 
an attractive or favorable aspect."g Dictionaries are not of themselves evidence, but they may be 
referred to as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 306 
(1893). Therefore, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the display of his work in the field 
claimed under this criterion occurred at artistic exhibitions or at artistic showcases. The petitioner must 
satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner asserted that his performances over the radio are equivalent to the display of his work at 
an artistic exhibition and that the submitted evidence should be considered as comparable evidence. 
Counsel failed to provide any legal analysis to support the position that journalistic performances over 
" See hitp:!!www.ul1luc.ct!u/libraryilibhow/articles.dl1l, accessed on July 10,2012, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
7 See hllp://www.l1lerrial1l-wcbstcr.col1l/dictionary/cxhihition. accessed on July 10,2012, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
s See ht1!2JL\Yww.merrial1l-w",_b.~ler.com/dictionary/showcase, accessed on July 10,2012, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 11 
the radio constitute the display of work at an artistic exhibition or a showcase. The AAO will consider 
comparable evidence separately below. The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the 
requirements of this criterion. 
As the petitioner is not a visual artist and has not created tangible pieces of art that were on display at 
exhibitions or showcases, he has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
This criterion anticipates that a leading role should be apparent by its pOSItIon in the overall 
organizational hierarchy and that it be accompanied by the role's matching duties. A critical role should 
be apparent from the petitioner'S impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The 
petitioner's performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for organizations or 
establishments as a whole. The petitioner must demonstrate that the organizations or establishments (in 
the plural) have a distinguished reputation. While neither the regulation nor precedent speak to what 
constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines distinguished as, 
"marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. ,,9 Dictionaries are not of themselves evidence, but 
they may be referred to as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Nix v. Hedden, 
149 U.S. 304, 306 (1893). Therefore, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the organizations 
or establishments claimed under this criterion are marked by eminence, distinction, excellence, or an 
equivalent reputation. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the 
plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The AAO will consider the letters below. At the outset, the AAO notes that merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfY the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. /756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 
9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
The letter from the 
duties but lacked a position in 
an organizational chart or other evidence documenting how 
provided the petitioner's 
. organization. Without 
the petitioner fits within the general 
, See httjl:Hww.w.m~Hji!m:Wj~h'5Jer.com/diCljol1aI:y/distingl!bh~i'!' accessed on July 10, 2012, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 12 
hierarchy 
perfonned in a leading 
The letter from 
the petitioner cannot rely on this evidence to establish that he has 
organization. 
indicated that the an imnolrt: 
for. merely 
Co',er:,,,e among the 
ilUIJ JL1lJltill description indicating different shows on the radio network. 
as a whole or how his 
did not sign her 
a consultant and public relations representative of 
to provide any actions ttribUitable to the petitioner that reflect a leading role within 
organizational structure or that describe any essential role the petitioner might have played 
within •. . stated that _ recent growth is due in part to melilllia covera e by 
networks such as the network that employs the petitioner. also 
indicated that the petitioner has regularly supported _in the public arena and that the petitIOner uses 
his knowledge of the sport and his influence to increase soccer fans' familiarity with the sport. 
short of cie,;crilhin 
promoted the 
of soccer. 
a representative of the also falls 
.~auw5 or critical role that he might have perfonned for this 
letter only points out that the petitioner is a recognized member andhas 
and that the club has benefitted from the petitioner's knowledge 
It is the petitioner'S burden to provide evidence relating to every element of a given criterion. Although 
_ may be a household name in the United States, the petitioner has provided no evidence to indicate 
that the above named organizations or establishments have a distinguished reputation. Without such 
evidence, the petitioner cannot meet the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 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. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion, comparing the petitioner's earnings of 
$46,225.04 with the median wage among reporters and correspondents in the United States without 
demonstrating what a high salary is in that field. The director ultimately found that the petitioner failed 
to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments beyond simply restating the positions put forth in the RFE 
response. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; 
Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9; Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 FedAppx. at 435. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
This criterion anticipates a petitioner will establish eligibility through volume of sales or box office 
receipts as a measure of the petitioner's commercial success in the performing arts. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion, DVDs of interviews the petitioner had 
conducted, and found that the petitioner failed to establish his eligibility under a criterion that requires 
evidence of sales volume. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. Counsel's appellate brief simply restates the positions put forth 
in the RFE response. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda 401 F.3d at 
1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying 
evidence under this criterion. 
D. Comparable Evidence 
The petitioner asserted in the alternative that if the AAO finds certain evidence insufficient to meet 
some of the criteria, the AAO should consider such evidence as comparable evidence. The criteria are 
written "in terms broadly applicable." 56 Fed. Reg. at 60898. Nevertheless, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4) allows an alien to submit comparable evidence if the alien is able to demonstrate that the 
standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) are not readily applicable to the alien's occupation. It is the 
petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to his occupation 
and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in 
this case, as there is no indication that a sufficient number of the criteria do not readily apply to the 
petitioner's occupation as a sports journalist and producer. In fact, as indicated in this decision, counsel 
mentioned evidence in her appellate brief that specifically addressed all ten of the criteria at the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to meet or submit documentary 
evidence under at least three of these criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. A~ such, no evidence that the 
petitioner submitted will be considered as comparable evidence. 
E. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Page 14 
Had the petitioner submitted the reqUisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination. 10 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(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. § 1361; Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of 
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966». Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 
(3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 
103(a)(I) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 
8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) 
(holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).