dismissed EB-1A Case: Technology And Government

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasienofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
Office of Administrative AppealsMS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE: Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER Date:
DEC072010
IN RE: Petitio r
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Worker as an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALF OFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If youbelievethelaw wasinappropriatelyappliedby usin reachingourdecision,or youhaveadditional
informationthat you wish to haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.
The specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto the office that originally decidedyour caseby filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or
Motion. Thefeefor aFormI-290Bis currently$585,but will increaseto $630on November23,2010.
Any appealor motion filed on or after November23, 2010 must be filed with the $630fee. Pleasebe
awarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbefiled within 30daysof thedecision
thatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscas.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION:Theemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,Texas
ServiceCenter,on August16,2010,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alienof extraordinaryability. Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerhadnot establishedthe
requisiteextraordinaryability and failed to submit extensivedocumentationof his sustained
nationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthe
statutethatthe petitionerdemonstrate"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of his or her achievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act
and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)statesthatan
alien can establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-time
achievement,specificallya major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof such
anaward,theregulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificevidence.8 C.F.R.§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)
through(x). The petitionermust submit qualifying evidenceunderat leastthree of the ten
regulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establishthebasiceligibility requirements.
On appeal,counselclaimsthat thepetitionermeetsat leastthreeof the regulatorycriteria at 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).
I. Law
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priority workers. - Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified
immigrantswho are aliensdescribedin any of the following subparagraphs(A)
through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.-- An alienis describedin this
subparagraphif --
(i) the alienhasextraordinaryability in the sciences,
arts,education,business,or athleticswhich hasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednationalor international
acclaim and whose achievementshave been
recognized in the field through extensive
documentation,
(ii) the alien seeksto enter the United Statesto
continueworkin theareaof extraordinaryability,and
Page3
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill
substantiallybenefitprospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S. CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalization
Service(INS)haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta veryhigh standardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723101"Cong.,2d
Sess.59(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29,1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"
refersonly to thoseindividuals in that small percentagewho haverisen to the very top of the
field of endeavor.Id. and8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratehis or hersustained
acclaimand the recognitionof his or her achievementsin the field. Suchacclaimmust be
establishedeither throughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(that is, a major, international
recognizedaward)or throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the
followingtencategoriesof evidence.
(i) Documentationof the alien's receipt of lessernationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor;
(ii) Documentationof thealien'smembershipin associationsin thefield for which
classificationis sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof theirmembers,
asjudged by recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor
fields;
(iii) Publishedmaterialaboutthealienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor
othermajormedia,relatingto thealien'swork in thefield for whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshallincludethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,and
anynecessarytranslation;
(iv) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor onapanel,asajudge
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which
classificationis sought;
(v) Evidenceof thealien'soriginalscientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,orbusiness-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield;
(vi) Evidenceof the alien's authorshipof scholarlyarticlesin the field, in
professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia;
(vii) Evidenceof thedisplayof thealien'swork in thefield atartisticexhibitionsor
showcases;
(viii) Evidencethat the alien has performedin a leading or critical role for
organizationsor establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation;
Page4
(ix) Evidencethatthealienhascommandedahighsalaryor othersignificantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin thefield;or
(x) Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,asshownbyboxoffice
receiptsorrecord,cassette,compactdisk,or videosales.
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof a
petitionfiledunderthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).Although
the courtupheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meetagivenevidentiarycriterion.' With respectto thecriteria
at 8 C.F.R.§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), the courtconcludedthat while USCISmay haveraised
legitimateconcemsaboutthe significanceof the evidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,
thoseconcemsshouldhavebeenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id.
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO'sevaluationrestedon animproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthe typesof evidenceprovided(which the AAO did)," andif the
petitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed
to satisfytheregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(astheAAO concluded)."Id. at
1122(citingto 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).Thecourtalsoexplainedthe"final meritsdetermination"as
thecorollaryto thisprocedure:
If a petitionerhassubmittedtherequisiteevidence,USCISdetermineswhetherthe
evidencedemonstratesbotha"levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis one
of thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof the[ir] field of endeavor,"
8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2),and"that the alienhassustainednationalor intemational
acclaimand that his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of
expertise."8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Only alienswhoseachievementshavegamered
"sustainednationalor intemationalacclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary
ability"visa.8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
Id. at 1119.
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approachwhere the evidenceis first counted and then
consideredin thecontextof afinal meritsdetermination.In reviewingServiceCenterdecisions,the
AAO will applythetestsetforth in Kazarian. As theAAO maintainsdenovoreview,theAAO
will conductanewanalysisif thedirectorreachedhisorherconclusionbyusingaone-stepanalysis
ratherthanthetwo-stepanalysisdictatedby theKazariancourt. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v.
UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),aff'd,345F.3d683(9thCir. 2003);
seealso Soltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145(3d Cir. 2004)(notingthat the AAO conducts
appellatereviewon adenovobasis).
Specifically,thecourtstatedthattheAAO hadunilaterallyimposednovel,substantive,or evidentiaryrequirernents
beyondthosesetforth in theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page5
II. ThePetitioner'sField of Expertise
At thetime of the originalfiling of thepetition,in Part5 andPart6 of Form I-140,Immigrant
Petitionfor Alien Worker,thepetitionerindicatedthathis occupation,job title, andnontechnical
descriptionofjob were"not applicable."In counsel'scoverletter,hestated:
[Thepetitioner]is anexpertin thefield of technologyandgovernment:therole of
freedomof Internetin reformingnon-democraticgovernmentstowarddemocracyin
the Middle East and establishingcivil societyand humanrights principles in
theocraticgovernments.
Moreover,onappeal,counselstated:
[The petitioner],an Iraniannational,is an expertin the field of technologyand
government:the role of freedom of Internet in reforming non-democratic
governmentstowarddemocracyin theMiddleEastandestablishingcivil societyand
human rights principles in theocratic government. His activities and
accomplishmentsduringthe lasttwenty yearshavedistinguishedhim asoneof the
few individualsat the top of his field of expertise. With his backgroundin
Information Technologycoupledwith his enormouslysuccessfulpolitical and
legislativeexperience,[the petitioner]becamehighly influentialin reformingthe
Iraniangovernmentaswell asadvancingIraniansocietyin differentways.
We notethatcounselfailedto relatethepetitioner'sclaimedfield of endeavorin technologyand
governmentto any of the fields enumeratedin section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act. We must
presumethatthephrase"in thesciences,arts,education,business,or athletics"is not superfluous
and,thus,that it hassomemeaning.SeeWaltersv. Metro.Educ.Enters.,519U.S. 202,209
(1997);Baileyv. U.S.,516U.S. 137,145(1995). The"exceptionalability" classification,now
undersection203(b)(2)of theAct, existedprior to theenactmentof theAct. WhentheAct was
amendedin 1990, there existedcase law interpreting"arts" as including "athletics." The
extraordinaryability classification,however, was an entirely new classification. Thus, Congress
chosethefieldsfor thisnewclassificationveryspecifically,expresslyadding"athletics"to section
203(b)(1)(A)of theAct, whereasit did not do soundersection203(b)(2)of theAct whereit was
alreadypresumedto fall within the "arts." "WhereCongressincludesparticularlanguagein one
sectionof a statutebut omits it in anothersectionof the sameAct, it is generallypresumedthat
Congressacts intentionallyand purposefullyin the disparateinclusionor exclusion." INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca,480U.S.421,432(1987).Thus,Congresswascapableof expandingthefields
previouslyrecognizedandchosenotto expandthelist of fieldsotherthanby addingathletics.If
Congresshad intendedall aliensof extraordinaryability, regardlessof their field, to qualify
undersection203(b)(1)(A),therewould havebeenno purposein includingthe phrase"in the
sciences,arts, education,business,or athletics."As Congressdid use that phrase,it can be
presumedthat theremay be aliensof extraordinaryability, who enjoy sustainednationalor
international acclaim, that are neverthelessineligible for classification under section
203(b)(1)(A)solelybecausetheir occupationdoesnot fall within the sciences,arts,education,
Page6
business,or athletics. To hold otherwisewould renderthe clearandplain languageof the statute
meaninglessandundermineCongressionalintent.
In thiscase,thepetitionermustestablishthathis claimedexpertiseof technologyandgovernment
falls within at leastoneof thefields- sciences,arts,education,business,or athletics.Whilewe
acknowledgethat thebroadnatureof thepetitioner'sfield of technologyandgovernmentcould
correspondwith businessand/oreducation,a reviewof therecordof proceedingfails to reflectthat
thepetitioner'sdocumentaryevidencedemonstratesthathehassustainednationalor international
acclaimin eitherof thesefields. Althoughthepetitionernowappearsto be involvedin education,
thedocumentaryevidencein therecordproceedingrelatesonlyto hiscommitmentto humanrights
andpoliticalactivism.Again,however,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathis claimedpolitical
andhumanitarianachievementsrelateto anyof thefieldsenumeratedin section203(b)(1)(A).
Thestatuteandregulationsrequirethatthepetitionerseeksto continueworkin his areaof expertise
in the United States. See sections 203(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8U.S.C.
§§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i)and(ii), and8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)and(5). While thepetitioner'sclaimed
pastexperiencein governmentandasan activistcould qualify him in thefield of educationor
business,thedocumentaryevidencesubmittedby thepetitionerdoesnot relateto eitherof these
fields. Rather,theevidencerelatesalmostexclusivelyto hispolitical andhumanitariannotoriety
asa memberof parliament. In otherwords,the petitionerfailed to establishthat his previous
governmentalexperience,political activism,andhumanitarianadvocacyfalls within anyof the
classificationspursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct. In Leev.LN.S.,237F. Supp.2d914
(N.D. Ill. 2002),thecourtstated:
It is reasonableto interpretcontinuingto work in one's "areaof extraordinary
ability" asworkingin thesameprofessionin whichonehasextraordinaryability,
not necessarilyin anyprofessionin thatfield. For example,Lee's extraordinary
ability asabaseballplayerdoesnotimplythathealsohasextraordinaryability in
all positionsor professionsin thebaseballindustrysuchasa manager,umpireor
coach.
Id. at 918. The courtnoteda consistenthistory in this area. In thepresentmatter,thereis no
evidenceshowingthatthepetitionerhassustainednationalor internationalacclaimin anyof the
classificationspursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct. While the etitionersubmittedcurrent
documentaryevidence,suchasajob letterfrom c reflectingthat
the petitionerwasappointedfor oneyearasa visiting fellow in the IranianStudiesProgramon
March 1, 2010,that reflectsthe petitioneris currentlypursuinga classificationof education,the
documentaryevidencesubmittedby thepetitionerto meetat leastthreeof the criteriaunderthe
regulationat 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)fails to reflectsustainednationalor internationalacclaimin
education,businessor anyof theotherremainingfieldslistedin section203(b)(1)(A)(i).
Wherethelanguageof thestatuteis clearon its face,thereis no needto inquireinto congressional
intent. INSv..Phinpathya,464U.S.183(1984);Shaarv.INS,141F. 3d953,956(9* Cir. 1998);
Page7
Matterof Lemhammad,20 I&N Dec.316(BIA 1991). Congress'languagelimiting thefieldsfor
extraordinaryabilityto thesciences,arts,education,business,andathleticsisclear.
As thepetitionerhasnot establishedthathis documentaryevidencefalls within thesciences,arts,
education,business,or athletics,anyfurtherdiscussionof theevidenceundertheregulatorycriteria
ismoot. Nevertheless,for purposesof thoroughness,wewill addresstheevidencebelow.
III. Translations
As indicatedby the directorin his decision,the recordof proceedingreflectsthat the petitioner
submittednumerousnon-certifiedEnglish languagetranslations,partial translations,summary
translations,and foreign languagedocumentswithout any English languagetranslations. The
regulationat8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)providesin pertinentpart:
(3) Translations.Any documentcontainingforeignlanguagesubmittedto USCIS
shallbe accompaniedby a full Englishlanguagetranslationwhich the translator
hascertifiedascompleteandaccurate,andby thetranslator'scertificationthathe
or sheis competentto translatefromtheforeignlanguageinto English.
Although at the time of the original filing of the petition counselattachedan "Affidavit of
Translation"to his brief certifyingthathe "translated/verifiedthedocumentswhich areattached
to this Affidavit" andcertified that the translationswere "true andaccurate,"a review of the
record of proceedingreflects that the translationsand certification do not comply with the
regulation. First, the submissionof a singlecertified translationfor multiple foreign language
documentsis of no valueif it doesnot specifythe exactdocumentsto which it pertains. The
submissionof a singletranslationcertificationthatdoesnot identifythedocumentor documents
it purportedlyaccompaniesdoesnot meetthe requirementsof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. §
103.2(b)(3).
Furthermore,the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3)specifically requiresa "full English
languagetranslation." Counsel, however, submitted only summary translations. In fact, counsel
provided single summarytranslationsthat purportedly summarizedmultiple foreign language
documents.For example,counselsubmittedasinglesummarytranslationfrom threenewspapers
claimingthat it only reflectedan "[a]nnouncementof developmentof informationtechnology
projectsin Iran" from Such scant
summarytranslationsfor single or multiple documentsfail to comply with the regulation at 8
C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).
In the director'srequestfor evidencepursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8),the
directorinformedthepetitionerthat:
[The petitioner]did not includean Englishtranslationof someof the published
materials[that thepetitioner]submitted. All foreigndocumentsmustincludean
Page8
English translation. Furthermore, [the petitioner] must submit an English
translationof theentirearticle[emphasisin original].
In responseto the director's requestfor evidence,counselclaimed that "[t]he cost and time
require[d] translatingall the news articles is an extremehardshipto the petitioner." The
argumentsby counselarenotpersuasive.As citedabove,theplain languageof theregulationat
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3)requires a "full English languagetranslation (emphasisadded)."
Moreover,in visa petition proceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for the benefit sought
remainsentirelywith thepetitioner. SeeMatter of Brantigan,11I&N Dec.493 (BIA 1966);
section291of theAct; 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Thecostandtime incurredby thepetitionerto translate
the petitioner'sown documentationdo not relieveor excusethe petitionerfrom the regulatory
requirementof submittingfull andcertifiedtranslations.
In addition,counselsubmitteda "few articlespickedandfully translatedin English." However,
asindicatedin thedirector'sdenialof thepetition,counseldid not submittheforeignlanguage
documentswith the English translations. While the petitioner may have submitted the
documentsat the time of the original filing of the petition,thosedocumentswerein a foreign
language.It is not incumbenton the directorto guessor infer which translationsrelateto the
originally submittedforeign languagedocuments.The burdenis on the petitionerto establish
eligibility. SeeMatter of Brantigan,11 I&N Dec.at 493; section291of theAct; 8 U.S.C.§
1361.
Notwithstandingthe above,counselfailed to submitcertifiedtranslationsof the documents.8
C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).However,on appeal,counselstatedthat"we haveenclosedtheCertificate
of Translationby theoriginaltranslatorof his articlessubmittedin hisAnswerto theRequestfor
More Evidence." As cited above,the submissionof a singlecertified translationfor multiple
foreign languagedocumentsis of no value if it doesnot specifythe documentsto which it
pertains.Thesubmissionof a singletranslationcertificationthatdoesnot identify thedocument
or documentsit purportedlyaccompaniesdoesnot meettherequirementsof theregulationat 8
C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).
As will be specificallyaddressedin variousplacesin this decision,becausethepetitionerfailed
to complywith theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§103.2(b)(3),theAAO cannotdeterminewhetherthe
evidencesupportsthepetitioner'sclaims. Accordingly, theevidenceis not probativeandwill not
beaccordedanyweightin thisproceeding.
IV. Primary Evidence
While not addressedby thedirector,therecordof proceedingreflectsthatthepetitionerfailedto
submitprimaryevidenceof his eligibility for someof the criteria. The regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(2)providesin pertinentpart:
(i) The non-existenceor other unavailability or required evidencecreatesa
presumptionof ineligibility. If a requireddocument,suchasa birth or marriage
Page9
certificate,doesnot exist or cannotbe obtained,an applicantor petitioner must
demonstratethis andsubmitsecondaryevidence,suchaschurchor schoolrecords,
pertinentto thefactat issue.If secondaryevidencealsodoesnotexistor cannotbe
obtained,theapplicantor petitionermustdemonstratetheunavailabilityof boththe
required documentand relevant secondaryevidence,and submit two or more
affidavits,swornto or affirmedby personswho arenot partiesto thepetitionwho
have direct personalknowledgeof the event and circumstances. Secondary
evidencemustovercometheunavailabilityof primaryevidence,andaffidavitsmust
overcometheunavailabilityof bothprimaryandsecondaryevidence.
(ii) Wherearecorddoesnotexist,theapplicantor petitionermustsubmitanoriginal
written statementon governmentletterheadestablishingthis from the relevant
governmentor otherauthority. Thestatementmustindicatethereasontherecord
doesnot exist, and indicatewhethersimilar recordsfor the time and placeare
available. However,a certificationfrom anappropriateforeigngovernmentthata
documentdoesnot existis not requiredwheretheDepartmentof State'sForeign
Affairs Manual indicatesthis type of documentgenerallydoesnot exist. An
applicantor petitionerwhohasnotbeenableto acquirethenecessarydocumentor
statementfrom the relevantforeignauthoritymay submitevidencethat repeated
good faith attemptswere made to obtain the required documentor statement.
However,whereUSCIS finds that suchdocumentsor statementsare generally
available,it may requirethat the applicantor petitionersubmitthe required
documentor statement.
As indicatedabove,theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)(i)providesthatthenon-existenceor
unavailabilityof requiredevidencecreatesa presumptionof ineligibility. Accordingto thesame
regulation,onlywherethepetitionerdemonstratesthatprimaryevidencedoesnotexistor cannotbe
obtainedmay the petitionerrely on secondaryevidenceandonly wheresecondaryevidenceis
demonstratedto be unavailablemay the petitionerrely on affidavits. In this case,while the
petitionersubmittedsecondaryevidence,suchas screenshotsfrom websitesandnewspaperand
magazinearticles,the petitionerfailed to submitany documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat
primary evidencedoesnot exist or cannotbe obtained. As such,the petitionerfailed to comply
with the regulationat 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(2),and the AAO will not considerthe petitioner's
secondaryevidence. Accordingly,the evidenceis not probativeandwill not be accordedany
weightin thisproceeding.
V. Assertionsof Counsel
Therecordof proceedingcontainsnumerousclaimsby counselof thepetitioner'seligibility for
severalof thecriteriapursuantto 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).However,counselfailedto submitany
documentaryevidencesupportinghis assertions.Without documentaryevidenceto supportthe
claim,theassertionsof counselwill not satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof. Theunsupported
assertionsof counseldonotconstituteevidence.Matter of Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534n.2
Page10
(BIA 1988);Matter of Laureano,19I&N Dec. 1,3n.2(BIA 1983);Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez,
17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
VI. Analysis
A. EvidentiaryCriteria
The petitioner, who last enteredthe United Statesas an F-1 nonimmigrant studentto attend
English languagetraining classes,has submittedevidencepertainingto the following criteria
under8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).2
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
At the time of the original filing of the petition,counselclaimedthepetitioner'seligibility for
thiscriterionbasedonthefollowing:
1. HumanRightsWatch
January2010;
2. Thespeakerof the 2004;
3. The
2004;and
4. The Central Council of the Iranian StudentsUnion (CCISU),
2003.
We notethat counseldid not provideanyspecificstatementor argumentregardinganyof these
claimsbut simplylistedtheaboveitemsin his letterin supportof thepetition. Furthermore,with
theexceptionof item 1,counselfailedto submitanydocumentaryevidencefor anyof theitems.
Regarding item 1, the petitioner submitted a letter from who stated:
I am pleasedto inform you that the has
awarded you this prestigious grant in recognition of your tireless efforts to
promoteandprotect internationalstandardsfor humanrights in Iran. You were
nominatedby for Human rights in
Iran.
Let me give you a little history aboutthe grant program. It fulfills the
wishesof the who left moneyin her estate
to helpwriterswhohadbeenvictimsof political persecution.
2Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimto meetor submitevidencerelatingto thecriterianotdiscussedin thisdecision.
Page11
* * *
We arepleasedto be ableto makethis gesturein recognitionof your couragein
defenseof humanrights andin supportof freeexpression.
In responseto the director'srequestfor evidence,regardingitem 1, counselsubmitted
screenshotsfrom www.hrw.orgreflecting:
A. grantprogramfor writersall aroundtheworld who
havebeenvictimsof politicalpersecutionandarein financialneed;
B. Recipientsarewriters andactivistswhosework andactivitieshavebeen
suppressed;and
C. grantsaim to help writers who dareto expressideasthat criticizes
official publicpolicyorpeoplein power.
Regardingitems2 - 4, counselfailed to submitanydocumentaryevidencebut claimed
thefollowing:
Regardingitem2, counselclaimed:
Theawardis in Iranandconfiscatedby thegovernment.
This awardwas presentedto handful of [membersof parliament]due to their
legislative achievements"and "[the petitioner] was awardedone of the most
effective and progressivememberof the Sixth Parliamentdue to promulgating
ground breaking acts and protecting individual's rights by using invested
constitutionalrightsinvestedin theParliament.
Regardingitem 3, counselclaimed:
At theendof the [SIAUAT] grantedanawardandrecognitionof his activitiesas
amemberof Parliamentin protectingstudent'srights andinterests.
Regardingitem4, counselclaimed:
Theawardgrantedto [thepetitioner]for his activitiesandaccomplishmentsin the
Sixth Parliament. . . .
Theindicationof this awardis that[thepetitioner's]trackrecordas[a memberof
parliament]wasapprovedby majorityof studentorganizations.
In the director'sdecision,he found that the documentaryevidencesubmittedby the petitioner
failed to establisheligibility for this criterion. On appeal,counselarguedthat "the Director
Page12
failed to considerall of [the petitioner's]awardsin light of his underlyingachievements"and
claimedthat documentswereprovidedfor all four itemslisted above. Contraryto counsel's
assertions,as indicatedabove,counselfailed to provide any documentaryevidenceregarding
items2 - 4. As such,we arenot persuadedby counsel'sargumentson appealandfind thatthe
directordid not err in his decisionregardingtheseitems. Notwithstanding,counselsubmitted
documentationonappealregardingall four items.
Regardingitem 1,counselreiteratedhispreviousarguments,submittedthepreviouslymentioned
screenshotsfrom www.hrw.ora,andsubmittedthefollowing newdocumentation:
i. A screenshotfrom www.earthtimes.orgreflectingthat "[t]he grants
aregiven annuallyto writers aroundthe world who havebeentargetsof
political persecutionor humanrightsabuses";
ii. A screenshotfrom www.upi.com reflecting that "[HRW] handsout the
grantsto writersaroundtheworld who havebeentargetsof political
persecution";and
iii. A screenshot from www.irrawaddy.org reflecting that
administersthe grants,awardedto writersandartistsaroundtheworld
whohavebeentargetsof politicalpersecution."
Regardingitem2, counselclaimed:
The Speakerof the Sixth Parliamentpresented[the petitioner]with an awardin
recognitionof his groundbreakingservice. The awardnamedhim asoneof the
most effective and progressivemembersof the Sixth Parliamentfor his work
towardsprotectingindividualrights.. . . Althoughthis awardis not presented
annually, its significanceand distinction stemsfrom being presentedby the
Speakerof the Sixth Parliamentof Iran. This attribute indicatethe award's
nationalstature. Furthermore,the award'sobjective,naming[the petitioner]as
one of the most effective and progressivemembersof the Sixth Parliament
indicatestheoutstandingachievementunderlyingtheaward.
Counselsubmitteda letterfrom
(unidentifiedfirst name),theSpeakerof theSixthParliament,whostated:
At the end of the Sixth Parliament after considerationof all the factors the
committeevoted to recogniz[e] [the petitioner's] achievementsin his official
capacityandsignificantrole. Subsequently, grant[ed]him anAward
in recognitionof his extraordinaryandeffectiveactivitiesastherepresentativeof
Tehranin theSixthParliamentof Iran.
Regardingitem3 and4, counselclaimed:
Page13
[The petitioner] received awards from [CCISU[ and [SIAUAT]. Both
organizationspresentedawardsto [thepetitioner]in recognitionof hisexceptional
advocacyand his outstandingachievements,which included facilitating the
releaseof hundredsof studentsillegally detained,advancingtheprivatizationand
expansionof Iran's datanetworks,expeditingthe democratizationprocess,and
protectingindividualrightsandfreedoms.. . . Thesetwo organizationsmadenote
of theinitiatives[thepetitioner]lead,thelegislationshepassed,andtheactionshe
took asa ParliamentMember,further conveyingthe outstandingnatureof [the
petitioner's]achievementsonwhichtheawardsarebased.
Counselsubmitteda letter from who
stated:
In 2004,our organizationhave [sic] grantedhim the Award and Certificateof
Appreciationatthemainhall of theuniversitywhenI wastheSecretary.
* * *
[W]ith supermajority of the votes selected[the petitioner] as the most loyal
representativeto its constituents particularly the students' demands for
democracy,andthe best[memberof parliament]of the sixth Parliament. This
awardwaspresentedto him duringa ceremonyat themainhall of theUniversity
in 2004.
In addition,counselsubmitteda letter from who
stated:
[W]e haveselectedhim by our centralcommitteevoteasthebestmemberof the
Sixth Parliament. We hold a ceremonyand representativefrom hundredsof
studentorganizationattendedto congratulatehim andthankhim for his efforts
and initiatives which helpedthe reform and democratizationprojectsin Iran.
[Thepetitioner's]achievementswereneverrepeatedby anyotherrepresentative.
Theplain languageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)requires"[d]ocumentationof the
alien'sreceiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein
thefield of endeavor(emphasisadded)." Furthermore,it is the petitioner's burdento establish
every elementof this criterion. Regarding we are not persuadedthat the submitted
documentaryevidenceis reflectiveof excellencein thepetitioner'sfield of endeavor,which was
claimedastechnologyandgovernment.Rather,ascitedabove, grantsrecognize"couragein
defenseof humanrights and in supportof free expression,""whosework and activitieshave
beensuppressed,""who dareto expressideasthat criticizesofficial public olicy or peoplein
power," and "targets of political persecutionor humanrights abuses." grantsare not
reflectiveof awardsor prizesfor excellencein the field of endeavor. Instead, grantsare
given to individuals who expressedcriticism of their governmentand who "are in financial
need." We are not persuadedthat being recognizedfor being politically persecutedor
Page14
suppressedequatesto excellencein the field much lessthe claimedfields of technologyand
government.
Regardingthe award from the Sixth Parliament,the petitioner failed to submit primary or
secondaryevidenceof theawardor evidencethattheawardcannotbeobtained.Althoughcounsel
claimedthat"[t]he awardis in Iranandconfiscatedby thegovernment,"hefailed to submitany
documentaryevidencesupportinghis assertions.Without documentaryevidenceto supportthe
claim,theassertionsof counselwill not satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof. Theunsupported
assertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence.Matter of Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.at 534n.2;
MatterofLaureano,19I&N Dec.at3n.2;MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.at506. We
further notethat counselfailed to providethe nameof the awardandonly referencedit asan
"Award." Notwithstanding,while theletterfrom explainedwhy theparliamentary
committeevotedto recognizethe petitioner'sachievements,the petitionerfailed to submitany
documentaryevidenceestablishingthatthe "Award" is nationallyor internationallyrecognized
for excellence.Merely submittinga letterindicatingthatthepetitionerreceivedan "Award" is
insufficient to establishthat the "Award" is nationally or internationally recognizedfor
excellencein thefield.
Similarly, the petitionerfailed to submit primary or secondaryevidenceof his awardsfrom
SIAUAT andCCISU or evidencethat the awardscannotbe obtained. Instead,the petitioner
relied solely on two letters. Nonetheless,while the letters describedthe reasonswhy the
petitionerreceivedtheawards,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathis awardsfrom SIAUAT or
CCISU arenationallyor internationallyrecognizedfor excellencein the field. Again, simply
submittinglettersreflectingthat the petitionerreceivedawardsare insufficientto demonstrate
eligibility for theplain languageof this criterionwithoutevidencedemonstratingthattheawards
arenationallyor internationallyrecognizedfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
As discussed,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)specifically
requiresthat the petitionerto establishhis receiptof nationally or internationallyrecognized
awardsin thefield of endeavor,andit is thepetitioner'sburdento establisheveryelementof this
criterion. In this case, the petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence of his receipt of
nationallyor internationallyrecognizedawardsfor excellencein hisfield of endeavor.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for which
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their
members,as judged by recognizednational or international experts in their
disciplinesorfields.
At the time of the original filing of thepetition,counselclaimedthe petitioner'seligibility for
thiscriterionbasedonthefollowing:
1. Memberof theSixthParliamentof Iran;
Page15
2. DeputyChairmanof TelecommunicationCommittee;
3. Memberof IndustriesCommittee,SixthParliament;
4. Memberof CentralCommittee,theOffice of StrengtheningUnity
; and
5. Memberof TheCenturyFoundation(TCF)WorkingGroupon Iran.
We notethat counseldid not provideanyspecificstatementor argumentregardinganyof these
claimsbut simplylistedtheaboveitemsin his letterin supportof thepetition. However,counsel
submittedthefollowing documentation:
A. A translationof a letterthatfails to identifythenameof thewriter of the
documentbut indicates that he is the Chairman of Administrative
Organization.We notethatcounselfailedto submittheoriginaldocument
to whichthetranslationpertains.Regardless,thetranslationreflects:
[Thepetitioner]hadrenderedhisdutiesin thesixthcourseof
IslamicConsultativeAssembly(fromMay 28,2000till May
27,2004)asanhonorablerepresentativeof Tehran.Hehad
beenalso admittedas a memberof
B. A screenshotfrom www.wikipedia.orgregardingthe Iranian legislative
electionsin 2000;and
C. An uncertified,partial,and summarytranslationof a documentfrom the
IranianLaborNewsAgencystating:
Thepetitionerwasselectedby thevoteof GeneralAssembly
of the Office for StrengtheningUnity
as one of the principal membersof its Central
Committeefor aperiodof two years.
In response to the director's request for evidence, counsel submitted the following
documentation:
i. A screenshotfrom www.servate.unibe.chregardingthelegislativepowers
of the ICA reflectingthat "[ICA] is constitutedby the representativesof
thepeopleelecteddirectlyandby secretballot";
Page16
ii. An uncertifiedtranslationof a documentreflectingthe InternalProceeding
Rules for the ICA. We note that counselfailed to submit the original
documentto whichthetranslationpertains;
iii. A screenshotfrom www.tef.orgregardingTCF;
iv. A documentreflectingthehistory,mission,andtrusteesof TCF;
v. A screenshotfrom
insideiran.orgto ProvideInsiders'View of PoliticalCrisisin Iran";
vi.
vii. A screenshotfrom
"; and
viii. An uncertified translation of a document regarding the Alumni
Associationof IslamicIranreflectingthatthepetitionerwas"inductedinto
the Central Council." We note that counselfailed to submit the original
documentto which thetranslationpertains.
In thedirector'sdecision,hefoundthatthepetitioner'smembershipin theparliamentof Iranand
TCF failed to reflectthat it wasbaseduponoutstandingachievements.Moreover,the director
foundthat thepetitionerfailed to establishthathe wasa memberof TCF. On appeal,counsel
argues:
[I]n [the petitioner's] field of government,winning an election is in fact, the
quintessentialverificationof achievement.[Thepetitioner]waselectedwith over
onemillion votesfrom the TehranDistrict. . . . Winning an election for sucha
prestigious leadership position from the Tehran District goes beyond a
demonstrationof minimum education,experience,or achievement.Thus, [the
petitioner]satisfiesthecriteriaof belongingto anassociation,whichin this caseis
the Sixth Parliament of Iran, wherein membership requires outstanding
achievementin the form of winning an election. Additionally,[the petitioner]
was elected to the position of Deputy Chairman of the Telecommunication
Committeeby his peerParliamentMembers. Fellow ParliamentMembersarea
selectedgroupof individualswho qualify asnationalexpertsin [thepetitioner's]
field of government.Thesegroupsof expertsarticulatedtheirjudgmentof [the
petitioner's] outstandingachievementby selectinghim to serve as Deputy
Chairmanof aParliamentCommittee.
* * *
Page17
[The petitioner's]outstandingachievementsin his field arefurther corroborated
by [the petitioner's]receiptof aninvitation from the [TCF's] Working Groupon
Iranto participatein a selectadvisorygroup. TheDirectorfoundtheinvitationto
be insufficientbecauseit only showedaninvitationto participatein the advisory
groupandnotactualparticipationwith thegroup. Forthis reason,we areoffering
additionalevidenceto verify theexistenceof [thepetitioner's]membershipin the
aforementionedadvisorygroup.
* * *
[The petitioner's] positionasa Memberof the Sixth Parliamentof Iran, asthe
DeputyChairmanof theTelecommunicationsCommittee,andasaMemberof the
IndustriesCommitteecoupledwith the invitations he receivesfrom multiple
internationalorganizationsto be a part of this notable internationaleffort in
helping Iranians reform the political system and devising balanced foreign
policies towards Iran further evinces [the petitioner's] sustainednational or
internationalacclaimasan individualwith extraordinaryability in his field. The
long list of conferenceparticipationsandmeeting. . . with influential actorsin
policy arenareflectthisfact.
Counselsubmittedthefollowing documentationon appeal:
a. The previously mentionedletter from who statedthat the
petitioner"waselectedwith morethana million votesfrom thedistrict of
Tehranto theSixth Parliament";
b. A letter from who indicatedthat the
petitionerwasamemberof
c. Meport entitled "Dealing with Iran, Time for a 'Middle Way'
BetweenConfrontationandConciliation";and
d. A documententitled [the petitioner]" reflecting
purportedmeetingswith 23 individuals.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires"[d]ocumentationof
thealien'smembershipin associationsin the field for whichis classificationis sought,which
require outstandingachievementsof their members,as judged by recognizednational or
internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor fields." In orderto demonstratethat membershipin
an associationmeets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the associationrequires
outstandingachievementasan essentialconditionfor admissionto membership.Membership
requirementsbased on employmentor activity in a given field, minimum educationor
experience,standardizedtest scores,gradepoint average,recommendationsby colleaguesor
currentmembers,or paymentof duesdo not satisfythis criterion assuchrequirementsdo not
constituteoutstandingachievements.Further,the overall prestigeof a given associationis not
Page18
determinative;the issuehere is membershiprequirementsrather than the association'soverall
reputation.
Notwithstandingthat the petitioner submitteduncertifiedand partial translations,as well as
failing to submittheoriginal documentsto whichthetranslationspertain,we arenot persuaded
that the petitioner'smembershipwith the Sixth Parliamentof Iran, aswell as membershipin
variouscommitteeswithin thegovernment,meetstheplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), which requires that membership in associationsrequire outstanding
achievements,asjudged by recognizednational or internationalexperts.The petitionerfailed to
establishthat his election to the Sixth Parliamentwas judged by recognizednational or
internationalexperts. Instead,the documentaryevidencereflectsthathe waselectedbasedon
the popular vote. We are not persuadedthat winning the popular vote in an election
demonstratesoutstandingachievements.
We acknowledgethat the recordof proceedingcontainssufficient documentationto establish
that the petitioner was a memberof the respectivecommitteesfor items 2 - 4. However,the
petitionerfailedto submitanydocumentaryevidenceestablishingthathis membershipon anyof
thesecommitteesrequires outstandingachievements,as judged by recognizednational or
internationalexperts. Merely submitting documentaryevidencereflecting the petitioner's
membership with a particular associationor evidence that he served on a governmental
committeewithout evidencereflecting that the petitioner's membershipwith an association
requires outstandingachievementsof its members,as judged by recognizednational or
internationalexperts,is insufficient to meet the plain languageof the regulation. It is the
petitioner'sburdento establisheveryelementof this regulatorycriterion.
Regarding in theletterfrom shestated:
The Iran Working Group Membersare selectedfrom amongmany influential
foreign policy actors. This group includes membersfrom the U.S. State
Department,EuropeanUnion, Europeanconsularstaff in the United States,
politicians and staff membersof key U.S. Senatorson the ForeignRelations
Committee,reputableforeignpolicy institutionsandthink tanks,andinformation
technology experts.
While indicatedthat membershipis "selectedfrom amongmany influential foreign
policy actors," letter falls far short in reflecting that membershipin requires
outstandingachievements,asjudged by recognizednationalor internationalexperts. We arenot
persuadedthatbeing"influential" equatesto outstandingachievements.In addition,
failed to indicatethe selectionprocessfor membership. Furthermore,while the petitioner
submittedbackgroundinformationregarding thedocumentaryevidencefails to reflectthe
membershiprequirementsfor so as to establishthat membershipwith requires
outstandingachievementsof its members,asjudged by recognizednational or international
experts.Again,overallprestigeor missionof a givenassociationis not determinative;theissue
hereis membershiprequirementsratherthantheassociation'soverallreputation.
Page19
Finally, asindicatedin itemd, counselsubmitteda list of meetingspurportedlyconductedby the
petitioner. Counselfailedto submitanysupportingdocumentationto establishthatthepetitioner
metwith anyof theindividualson thelist. Regardless,theplain languageof theregulationat 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratehis membershipin associations.
Even if the petitionerestablishedthat he met with the individuals,the petitionerfailed to
establishhow his meetingsdemonstrateeligibility for the plain languageof this regulatory
criterion. Simply meetingwith individualswho representorganizationsor associationsfails to
establishthepetitioner'smembershipin associations.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Publishedmaterial aboutthealien in professionalor major tradepublications or
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which
classificationis sought. Suchevidenceshall includethetitle, date,and author of
thematerial, and any necessarytranslation.
At the time of the original filing of the petition,counselclaimedthe petitioner'seligibility for
this criterion basedon uncertified,partial, and summarytranslations,as well as documentary
evidencewithout any translations. As the documentaryevidencefails to comply with the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),the evidenceis not credible,andwe will not further
addresstheevidence.Thefollowing documentationwassubmittedin theEnglishlanguage:
1. An article entitled, on
SatelliteTV," December17, 2002, unidentifiedauthor,AgenceFrance
Presse;
2. An article entitled,
' May 16,2005,unidentifiedauthor,AgenceFrancePresse;
3. An articleentitled,
' June12,2001,unidentifiedauthor,AgenceFrancePresse;
4. A screenshotentitled, to
be Impeached," October 31, 2003, unidentified author,
www.payvand.com;
5. A screenshotentitled,
. .. August 25,
2004,unidentifiedauthor,www.payvand.com;
6. A screenshotentitled, _.
' September26,2008,unidentifiedauthor,www.payvand.com;
Page20
7. A screenshot entitled,
September14,2000,unidentifiedauthor,www.cnn.com;
8. A screenshotentitled,
" June25,2003,unidentifiedauthor,www.aljazeerah.info;
9. An untitled article, February2, 2004, unidentified author, Iran News
Agency;
10. A screenshotentitled,
unidentifieddate, www.atimes.com;
11. A screenshotentitled,
April 30,2003, www.guardian.com;
12. A screenshotentitled, ' August 15,2006,
unidentifiedauthor,www.nytimes.com;
13. An article entitledece
14. An articleentitled,
March18,2010, www.nytimes.com;
15. A screenshotentitled,"
April 22,2010, www.antiwar.com;
16. A screenshotentitled,
April 23,2010, www.ipsnews.net;
17. An article entitled,
Activists SayHardwareis Neededto EvadeWeb andSatellite
Jamming," March 20, 2010, The International Herald
Tribune
18. An articleentitled, unidentifieddate,Fareed
Zakaria,Newsweek;
19. A screenshotentitled, February3,
2004,unidentifiedauthor,www.cbsnews.com;
20. A screenshotentitleA
March 6, 2007, unidentified author,
www.humanrightsfirst.org;
Page21
21. A screenshotentitled,
June13,2006,unidentifiedauthor,www.humanrightsfirst.org;
22. A documententitled,ug
DocumentsandPublications;
23. August12,2006,
24. A screenshotentitled,
' March8,2004,unidentifieddate,www.dailytimes.com;
25. A screenshotentitled, ," March7,
2004,unidentifiedauthor,www.aljazeera.net;and
26. A screenshotentitled,
unidentifieddate, www.wsj.com.
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor evidence,ascitedpreviously,counselsubmittedselected
uncertifiedtranslationsthat alsolackedthe original documentsto which they pertain. As the
documentaryevidenceis of no evidentiaryvaluewithout therequisitecertifiedtranslations,will
not further addressthe evidencehere. We note that counselsubmittedthe following two
documents:
A. A screenshotentitled, ' July 27,
2010, www.nytimes.com;and
B. A partialarticleentitled,"IranianExilesStruggleto InfluenceHomeland,"
July 28, 2010, unidentified author, The New York Times International.
In thedirector'sdecision,he foundthatthe submitteddocumentaryevidencefailed to establish
eligibility for this criterion. On appeal,counselargues:
The denialletter statedthat the articlessubmittedfailed to havecertificationof
translationandthenewspaperswerenot nationallycirculated. To overcomethese
issues,we have encloseda letter by
who confirmsthe nationalcirculation of the newspapersreferencedin
[the petitioner's]petition. . . . In addition,we haveenclosedthe Certificateof
Translationby theoriginaltranslatorof his articlessubmittedin hisAnswerto the
Requestfor More Evidence.. . . Particularlynotableis the article in Computer
and CommunicationWorld Magazine,the most reputablemagazinein [the
Page22
petitioner's] field in Iran. However,the Director only madenoteof threearticles
in hisdecisionto deny[thepetitioner's]petition.
Again, while counsel submitted on appeal a "Certificate of Translation by the original
translator," the submissionof a single translation certification that does not identify the
documentor documentsit purportedlyaccompaniesdoesnot meet the requirementsof the
regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Moreover,while counselsubmitteda letter from
stating that Hamshahri, Iran, Hambastegi, Tose'e, Etemad,
Hayat e No, MardomSalari, YaseNo, Aftab e Yazd,andKaro Karegarare "reputableand
nationallycirculatedprint publications,"counselfailedto submitfull and/orcertifiedtranslations
of the articlesfrom any of thesepublications. As such,the determinationif the articleswere
published in professional or major trade publications or other major media is moot.
Notwithstanding,we are not persuadedthat a single letter that generallyclaims that various
publicationsare nationally circulateddemonstratesthat they are professionalor major trade
publicationsor othermajormedia. failed to provideanyspecificdetailsin her letter
or furtherdocumentationto supportherclaims.
Theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requires"[p]ublishedmaterial
aboutthe alien in professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia,relatingto the
alien'swork in the field for which classificationis sought." In general,in orderfor published
materialto meetthis criterion,it must be primarily aboutthe petitionerand, as statedin the
regulations,beprintedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.To qualify
asmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor internationaldistribution.Some
newspapers,suchastheNewYorkTimes,nominallyserveaparticularlocalitybutwouldqualifyas
major mediabecauseof significantnationaldistribution,unlike small local communitypapers.3
Furthermore,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthat
"[s]uch evidenceshall includethe title, date,and authorof the material,and any necessary
translation." We noteherethatthepetitionersubmittedseveralarticlesthat werepostedon the
Internet. However,we are not persuadedthat articlespostedon the Internetfrom a printed
publication are automatically consideredmajor media. The petitioner failed to submit
independent,supporting evidence establishing that the websites are considered major media. In
today's world, many newspapers,regardlessof size anddistribution, post at leastsomeof their
storieson theInternet. To ignorethis realitywouldbeto renderthe"major media"requirement
meaningless. However, we are not persuadedthat international accessibility by itself is a
realisticindicatorof whethera givenwebsiteis "major media."
Regardingitems1- 3, thepetitionerfailedto includetheauthorsof the articles. Moreover,the
articlesare not primarily aboutthe petitioner. Regardingitem 1, the article is about Iran's
reformistparliamentvote to enda nationalbanof satellitetelevision. In fact, thepetitioneris
mentionedonly onetime in the articleascontributinga quote. Regardingitem 2, the articleis
3 Even with nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmust be given to the placementof the article. For
example,anarticlethatappearsin theWashingtonPost,but in a sectionthat is distributedonly in Fairfax County,
Virginia, for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividual'sreputationoutsideof thatcounty.
Page23
aboutboycottingtheIranianpresidentialelection. Thepetitioneris mentionedonly onetime as
beingbarredfrom standingin the 2004 elections. Regardingitem 3, the article is aboutthe
jailing of anIranianinvestigativejournalist,Akbar Ganji. Thepetitioneris only mentionedone
timeasbeingdeniedmeetingswith AkbarGanjiinjail.
Regardingitems 4 - 6, the petitionerfailed to include the author and failed to submit any
documentaryevidenceestablishingthat www.payvand.comis a professionalor major trade
publicationor othermajormedia. Regardingitem 4, while the etitioneris cited onetime, the
screenshotis notaboutthepetitionerbuttheimpeachmentof Regardingitem
5, while the petitioner'snameis cited onetime, alongwith at least 17 other individuals,the
articleis about 150reformistjournalistsandpoliticiansprotestinglimitationson pressin Iran.
Regardingitem 6, while thepetitioneris mentionedasbeingallowedto leaveprisonto attenda
memorialfor his father,thearticleis aboutthecrackdownagainstpeacefulcriticsin Iran.
Regardingitem 7, the petitionerfailed to include the authorof the screenshot. In addition,
althoughthe petitionerprovided somequotations,the screenshotis not about the petitioner;
ratherthescreenshotis abouttheclosingof Tohid prisonin Iran
Regardingitem 8, the petitionerfailed to includethe authorof the screenshot.Moreover,the
petitionerfailed to submitanydocumentaryevidencedemonstratingthatwww.aljazeerah.infois
a professionalor major tradepublicationor othermajor media. Further,the screenshotis not
about the petitioner. Instead,the screenshotis about the urging of
by reformistlawmakersto takeastandoverarrests.
Regardingitem9,thepetitionerfailedto includethetitle andauthorof thearticle. Furthermore,
thepetitionerfailedto submitanydocumentaryevidenceestablishingthatIranNewsAgencyis a
professionalor majortradepublicationor othermajormedia.Regardless,thearticleis about125
parliamentdeputiesofferingresignationlettersin protestto thedisqualificationof nomineesfor
the7thMajliSelections.Thepetitioner'snamewasmerelylistedwith theother124deputies.
Regarding item 10, the petitioner failed to include the date of the screenshot. In addition, the
screenshotis not about the petitioner;insteadthe screenshotis about
Further,thepetitionerfailedto submitanydocumentary
evidenceestablishingthat www.atimes.comis a professionalor major tradepublication or other
major media.
Regardingitem 11,althoughwe acknowledgethatthe screenshotis aboutthepetitioner,it does
not otherwisemeettheplain languageof theregulation. First,thearticleis aboutthepetitioner
facingarrest"afterjudicial authoritiesaccusedhim of underminingIran's nationalinterestsby
informingUN humanrightsmonitorsaboutallegedabusesof political prisoners." Specifically,
thepetitionerwasaccused"of discussingwith UN monitorsthecaseof two reformerswho were
jailed after publishing a poll . . . ." The plain languageof the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthatthepublishedmaterial"relat[e] to thealien'swork in thefield for
which classificationis sought." In this case,we arenot persuadedthatthe screenshotrelatesto
Page24
thepetitioner'sclaimedfield of technologyandgovernment.Thepetitionerhasalsofailed to
establishthatthepublicationis aprofessionalor majortradepublicationor othermajormedia.
Regardingitems 12 - 14, the articles are not about the petitioner. Regardingitem 12,
notwithstandingthat the petitionerfailed to includethe authorof the screenshot,the article is
primarily about with thepetitionermentionedasbeingin prison. Regardingitem
13,the screenshotis aboutthe Iranianelectionandthereform movement.Regardingitem 14,
thescreenshotis abouttheeffectof sanctionson variousonlineservicesin Iran.
Regardingitem 15and16,thepetitionerfailedto submitanydocumentaryevidenceestablishing
that www.antiwar.comand www.ipsnews.netare professionalor major tradepublicationsor
othermajormedia. We notethatthearticlesareidenticalbut postedon differentwebsites.The
screenshotsare not about the petitioner; rather the screenshotsare about the developmentof
softwarethatwouldevadecensorsin Iran.
Regardingitem 17,while thepetitionerwasquotedin thearticle,thearticleis aboutthedecision
of theUnitedStatesto lift sanctionsof variousonlineservices.
Regardingitem 18,the petitionerfailed to includethe dateof the article. Similar to item 17,
while thepetitionerwasquotedonetime in the article,it is primarily aboutthedebateoverthe
Iraniannuclearprogram.
Regardingitem 19,thepetitionerfailedto includetheauthorof the screenshot.In addition,the
screenshotis about notdelayingor postponingelections.
Regardingitems 20 and 21, the petitioner failed to include the author of the screenshots.
Furthermore,the petitioner failed to submit any documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat
www.humanrightsfirst.orgis a professionalor major tradepublicationor other major media.
Also,thescreenshotsareabouttherightsof womenleadersin Iranandtherequestfor support.
Regarding item 22, the document is primarily about the death of a jailed Iranian student
dissident, andnotaboutthepetitioner.
Regardingitem 23,the article is aboutIran's crackdownon While the petitioneris
briefly mentionedonetime asbeing detainedat a rally for women's rights in Tehran,Iran, the
articleis not aboutthepetitioner. In addition,thepetitionerfailedto submitanydocumentary
evidenceestablishingthat TheAge is a professionalor major tradepublicationor other major
media.
Regardingitem 24 and25, the petitionerfailed to includethe authorsof the screenshots.We
note that the articlesare identicalbut postedon different websites. Moreover,the petitioner
failed to submit any documentary evidence reflecting that www.dailytimes.com and
www.aljazeera,netare professional or major trade publications or other major media.
Page25
Nonetheless,the screenshotsareaboutthe clashbetweenconservativesand reformistsover the
performanceof , notthepetitioner.
Regardingitem26,thepetitionerfailedto includethedateof thescreenshot.Similarto item24,
the screenshotis aboutreformistlawmakersin Iran challengingthe authorityof
andis not primarily aboutthepetitioner.
Wenote,regardingitemsA andB, thattheitemswerepublishedafterthefiling of thepetitionon
June18,2010. Eligibility mustbe establishedat the time of filing. 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1),
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Commr. 1971). A petition cannotbe
approvedat afuturedateafterthepetitionerbecomeseligibleunderanewsetof facts. Matter of
Izummi,22 I&N Dec.169,175(Comm'r1998).Thatdecisionfurtherprovides,citingMatterof
Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114(BIA 1981),that we cannot"considerfactsthat comeinto being
only subsequentto thefiling of apetition." Id. at 176. Wealsonotethatbothitemsareidentical
with onepostedonlineandtheotheroneprintedin TheNewYorkTimes.Finally, we notethata
reviewof thearticlereflectsthatit is not aboutthepetitionerbut variousIranianexilesandtheir
activism.
As evidencedabove,the petitioner submittednumerousarticlesand screenshotsthat briefly
mentionthe petitioner'snameor quotethe petitioner. However,asthe plain languageof the
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requiresthat the publishedmaterial be about the
petitionerrelatingto hiswork,thesubmissionof documentaryevidencethatquotesthepetitioner
or merelymentionsthe petitionerfails to meetthe plain languageof the regulationrequiring
publishedmaterialaboutthepetitionerrelatingto his work. Theevidencealsofails to establish
the petitioner's eligibility as there is no evidenceto demonstratethat the abovereferenced
materialswerepublishedin professionalor major tradepublicationsor othermajor mediaand
otherdeficiencieslike failureto providetheauthoror dateof thematerial.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specificationfor which
classificationis sought.
At thetimeof thefiling of thepetition,counselclaimed:
[The petitioner] was a member of the panels to confirm students' thesis in
differentUniversities.Theonly evidenceavailableto supportthis is copiesof the
thesisapprovedby [thepetitioner]. Unfortunatelydueto thedistanceandlack of
personalconnectionwith formerstudentswecannotoffer youtheevidencein this
category.
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor additionalevidence,counselclaimed:
Page26
Thereis no additionalevidenceavailableatthis time. [Thepetitioner)servedin a
panelto qualify student'sthesisin Iran. [The petitioner]servedin that capacity
for about 15 studentsgraduatingin [the] field of telecommunicationsand
Electronics.
Thedirectorfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto establisheligibility for this criterion. On appeal,
counselfailed to contestthe decisionof the directoror offer additionalarguments.The plain
languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)requires"[e]videnceof the alien's
participation,eitherindividuallyor on a panel,asajudgeof thework of othersin thesameor an
alliedfield of specificationfor whichclassificationis sought." Without documentaryevidenceto
supporttheclaim,theassertionsof counselwill not satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof. The
unsupportedassertionsof counseldo notconstituteevidence.Matter of Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.
at534n.2;Matterof Laureano,19I&N Dec.at3 n.2;Matterof Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.
at 506. As counselfailed to addressthe director'sfinding regardingthis criterion,we will not
furtherdiscussit on appeal.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof the alien's original scientific,scholarly,artistic, athletic, or business-
relatedcontributionsof majorsigm'ficancein thefield.
At the time of the original filing of the petition and in responseto the director's requestfor
evidence,thepetitionerfailedto claimeligibility for this criterion. However,in the director's
decision,heconsideredthepetitioner'ssubmissionof recommendationlettersandfoundthatthe
petitionerfailed to establisheligibility for this criterion. On appeal,counselarguesthat the
recommendationlettersdemonstratethe petitioner'seligibility for this criterion and submitted
two additionalrecommendationletters.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)requires"[e}videnceof the
alien'soriginal scientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-relatedcontributionsof major
significancein the field." In compliancewith Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain
languageof theregulatorycriteria.596F.3dat 1121. Here,theevidencemustbereviewedto see
whetherit risesto the level of "original scientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-related
contributionsof majorsignificancein thefield."
We citerepresentativeexamplesof therecommendationlettershere:
2003,stated:
[Thepetitioner]wasthedeputychairmanof theTelecommunicationSubcommittee,
and in that capacity,he introducedandpromulgatedimportantbills that havea
remarkableand long lastinginfluencefor the bettermentof the fellow citizens.
Amongstthem andrelatedto my practice,I can name:Political Crime Statutes,
MediaRegulationStatutes,Civil RightsStatutes,andProvincialElectionStatues.
Page27
[The petitioner's]liberatingapproache[sic] saidlegislationscreatedhopein our
communityof civil rightsadvocates.
statedthatthepetitioner"introducedandpromulgatedimportantbills." However,
failedto indicateif thebills wereeverenactedinto law andfailedto specificallyidentify
how thebills havehad"a remarkableandlong lastinginfluence"soto establishthat theyhave
beenof major significanceto the field. Simply performingone'sjob is not evidenceof an
original contribution. As a legislator,thepetitionerwould be expectedto proposeandassistin
thepassageof legislation.
stated:
Among [the petitioner's] most important activities was his leadershipon a
parliamentarycommitteeresponsiblefor inspectingIran's prison system. [The
petitioner] spearheadedefforts to identify and locateIran's secretprisons,and
pressuredthe governmentto shut down severalof its most notoriousdetention
facilities. [Thepetitioner's]actionsresultedin thereleaseof numerousstudentsand
othermembersof civil societywho hadbeenarbitrarilyarrestedanddetainedby
Iran'ssecurityandintelligenceapparatus.
Similarly, while creditedthe petitionerwith shuttingdown detentionfacilities that
resultedin thereleaseof students, failedto indicatehow this impactedthefield asa
wholeandnotlimitedto theindividualswhowere"arbitrarilyarrestedanddetained."
stated:
[Thepetitioner]is anexceptionalindividualwith vastknowledgeof Iranianpolitics,
democraticgovemance,and the role of non-govemmentalorganizations. [The
petitioner]is an activistwho supportstheestablishmentof a democraticsystemin
Iran based on international standards of human rights. [The petitioner] was a
memberof Iran's Parliamentwhile alsobeing an activememberof progressive
politicalgroups.As thedirectorof , I honorhis worksandtrackrecordin
Iran. [Thepetitioner's]legislativework were[sic] groundbreakingandmilestonein
struggleforjusticein Iran.
While describedthepetitioner'swork as"groundbreakingandmilestonein strugglefor
justicein Iran,"hefailedto explainhowthepetitioner'swork wasgroundbreaking.Not only does
the letterfrom fail to indicateanyoriginal contributionsmadeby the petitioner,the
letteralsofails to indicateif the petitioner'swork hasbeenmajorlysignificantto the field asa
wholeandnotlimitedto Iranianpolitics.
stated:
Page28
[Thepetitioner]emergedasa manof unfailingandlofty moralvalues,a politician
unwillingto betemptedby theperksandprivilegesof power,if thepriceis infamy
or forfeitinghisdemocraticvalues.It is far fromhyperboleto suggestthatamongst
hisreformistpeers,andfor ayounggenerationof Iranians,[thepetitioner]embodied
a youngprofile in courage,someonewilling to standup for democraticrightsand
valuesandreadilypaythehigh costclericaldespotswill forceon thosewho dare
standuptothem.
Although praisedthepetitionerfor hismoralsandvalues, failedto state
asinglecontributionof majorsignificanceto thefield madebythepetitioner.
stated:
[Thepetitioner's]contributionswerevaluablenotonlyfor Iran,butwerealsobeing
watchedcloselyby otherMuslim countriesstrivingfor their own democraticspace.
His pursuitof socialchangethroughthelegislativeframeworkbecameanimportant
casestudyfor manypoliticalscientistsstudyingpoliticsof theMiddleEast.
[Thepetitioner's]dedicationto humanrightscontinuedafterhis termin parliament
came to an end in 2004. [The petitioner] remainedactive in different non-
governmentalorganizationsdefendinghumanrights andwomen'srights in Iran.
[Thepetitioner]alsocontinuedhisfight againstInternetcensorshipandprovedto be
oneof Iran'smostoutspokenadvocatesof freedomof information.
briefly indicatedthat the petitioner's "legislative framework becamean
importantcasestudy." However, failedto explainhow or why thepetitioner's
work wasanimportantcasestudy. We arenotpersuadedthatthepetitioner'swork wasstudiedby
political scientistsalsodemonstratesthat it is of major significanceto the field without specific
examplesreflectingthe influenceof the petitioner'swork. Likewise,while
claimedthatthepetitionercontinuesto fight againstInternetcensorship,therewasnoevidencecited
in the letter that reflects any significant resultsfrom his advocacy.
stated:
[Thepetitioner]provedhimselfasanindefatigabledefenderof humanrightsin Iran.
As headof inspectingand supervisingof prisonshe visited variousprisons and
producedaverycritical reportthatdocumentednumeroushumanrightsviolationsin
Iranianjails. I recallhow he bravelycriticizedthe IranianSupremeLeaderin a
parliamentaryspeechafterthelatterhadvetoedprogressivepresslaw. . . . I amvery
confidenthe will contributegreatlyto our countryandhasmy full supportand
endorsement.
In letter,hebriefly mentionedthepetitioner'sproducingareporton humanrights
violationsin Iranianjails,butfailedto furtherdescribetheinfluenceor impactof thisreportsoasto
Page29
establishthat is wasof majorsignificanceto the field. Similarly,while the petitioneropenly
criticizedthe iled to describethe significanceof this
criticismto thefield asa whole. Finally, statedthatthepetitioner"will contribute
greatly(emphasisadded). Eligibility must be establishedat the time of filing. 8 C.F.R.
§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);Matter ofKatigbak, 14I&N Dec.at49.A petitioncannotbe approvedat a
futuredateafterthepetitionerbecomeseligible undera newsetof facts. Matter of Izummi,22
I&N Dec.at 175. Thatdecisionfurtherprovides,citingMatter of Bardouille,18I&N Dec.at
114,that we cannot"considerfacts that come into being only subsequentto the filing of a
petition." Id. at 176. A petitionercannotfile a petition underthis classificationbasedon the
expectationof futureeligibility. Theassertionthatthepetitioner'sworkis likely tobeinfluential
is not adequateto establishthat his work arealreadyrecognizedasmajor contributionsin the
field. While praisesthe petitioner,it appearsfrom statement
thatanymeasurableimpactthatresultsfrom thepetitioner'swork will likely occurin thefuture.
stated:
In my opinion,[thepetitioner]is a prominentfigure in areaof humanrights,civil
andpoliticalrights,andreformin totalitariangovemments.I believe[thepetitioner]
will beagreatadvantagefor institutionsandindividualsactivein thesaidareain the
UnitedStates. In anotherpoint, [thepetitioner]canproducefreely andinfluence
moreaudiencein thiscountryto thebenefitof IranianandAmericancitizens.
While statesthatthepetitioner"is a prominentfigure,"theletterfails to describe
anyoriginalcontributionsof majorsignificanceto thefield. Moreover, indicated
thatthepetitioner"will be a greatadvantagefor institutionsandindividuals(emphasisadded)"
without identifyingany currentinfluenceof the petitioner'swork on institutionsor individuals.
Eligibility mustbe establishedat the time of filing. 8 C.F.R.§§103.2(b)(1),(12); Matter of
Katigbak,14I&N Dec.at 49. A petitioncannotbe approvedat a futuredateafterthepetitioner
becomeseligibleunderanewsetof facts. Matter ofIzummi,22 I&N Dec.at 175. Thatdecision
furtherprovides,citing Matter of Bardouille,18I&N Dec.at 114,thatwe cannot"considerfacts
that come into being only subsequentto the filing of a petition." Id. at 176.
stated:
[The petitioner's] efforts in bettermentof the conditionsin prisonsand other
detentionfacilitieswerehugelysuccessfully,especiallywhenit comesto political
prisoners. [The petitioner] was so instrumentalin closing some of the most
notoriousdetentioncentersin Iran:theTohidPrison. In June2003whenhundreds
of studentsweredetainedfor longdurations,[thepetitioner]andothermembersof
theparliamentincludingmyselfcomplainedandtookrefugein parliamentasaform
of protest.As theresultof oureffort,a specialcommissionto releasethosestudents
withouttrial wasestablished.Thiswasan[sic] greatachievementandit couldhave
beendonewithouttheuntiringworkof myfriend[thepetitioner]."
Page30
briefly describedthepetitioner'sinvolvementin the closingof somedetention
facilitiesin Iran. However, failedto explainhow thepetitioner'swork hasbeen
of majorsignificanceto thefield asawholeandnotlimitedto certaindetentioncentersin Iran.
stated:
[Thepetitioner's]accomplishmentsarenotveiledfor anyoneof thefollowingIran's
affairs. [The petitioner]was a studentleader,memberof the Parliament,and
memberof nonprofitorganizationspromotingcivil societies.We hadprofessional
encounterswhilehe wasathis official post,but we expandedourcooperationafter
his term. As [the petitioner]was active in promulgatinglaws in protectionof
individualrightshewasanadvocatein strengtheningtheroleof non-governmental
organizationsin society.
Similarto letter, failedto indicateanyoriginalcontributionsmadeby
thepetitionerandfailedto indicateif thepetitioner'swork hasbeenof majorsignificanceto the
field asa wholeandnot simplylimitedto Iranianpolitics. In addition,while
indicatedthat the petitionerwas activein promulgatinglaws and advocatingthe role of non-
governmentalorganizations, failed to indicatethe resultsof the petitioner's
involvementsoasto establishoriginalcontributionof majorsignificancein thefield.
stated:
[The petitioner]is oneof the leadingIranianexpertson how to useinformation
technologiesto assistin democratizationandhumanrightseffortsin countriessuch
asIran. I haveknownof [thepetitioner]by reputationsincehistimeasa reformist
congressmen,andhadtheopportunityto meethim in 2009prior to beginningmy
currentassignment.[The petitioner]was alsowell andfavorablyknown by my
predecessorshereat ] prior to my arrival. Both
before and after leaving Iran [the petitioner]has been a tirelessadvocatefor
democratic reform in Iran, and his efforts have increasedsince arriving in the U.S.
Sincehis arrival [the petitioner] hasbeena sourceof considerablehelp and insight to
U.S.policymakersconsideringthecurrentsituationin IranandwhatoptimalU.S.
policyshouldbe.
While indicatedthatthepetitioner"hasbeena sourceof considerablehelpandinsightto
U.S.policymakers," failed to describethehelp or insightthatthepetitionergaveto U.S.
policymakersso as to establishoriginal contributionsof major significanceto the field. This
criterion specifically requires that the petitioner establishoriginal contributionsof major
significanceto thefield;thepetitioner'sreputationalonewill notsufficefor thiscriterion.
stated:
Page31
[The petitioner's]accomplishmentsandimpactson Iran's politics is [sic] very well
recognizedby Iraniansand thosewho have interestsin Iranianpolitics. [The
petitioner]is amongthehandfulof expertsin thefield of InformationTechnologies
anddemocracybuilding,political reform andhumanrights. [The petitioner's]a
political leader;studentmovementof Iranneverhadamoresuccessfulandeffective
leaderthan[thepetitioner]. [Thepetitioner]led thestudentmovementto a political
victory duringthe reform era,andthenrepresentedthe studentmovementat the
Parliament(Majilis). [The petitioner] was among the most respectedand
accomplishedMembersof theParliamentwhofoughteverydayfor hisconstituents.
[Thepetitioner]continuedhisactivitiesandplayedamajorrolein thewomenrights
movementin Iran,thatstruggleis still alive. Since[thepetitioner]is in theUnited
States,[the petitioner]playeda major role in educatingthe policy makersand
expertsaboutthepolitical situationin Iran. [Thepetitioner]attendedworkgroups
and conferences,and [the petitioner]met with politiciansto form policies and
alliancesto supportthedemocracymovementof Iran. His attemptswerefruitful by
influencing policy makers in supporting the freedom of Intemet and
communicationsin Iran.
While describedsomeof thepoliticalcausestakenon by thepetitioner,
failedto indicatehow the petitioner'sparticipationin the causeswasan originalcontributionof
majorsignificanceto thefield. Wenotethat alsoindicatedthatthepetitioner"playeda
majorrolein thewomenrightsmovementin Iran,butthenindicatedthatthe"struggleis still alive,"
which appearsto reflectthatthepetitioner'scontributionsto thewomenrightsmovementfailed to
accomlishanysignificantresultsthatwouldestablisheligibilityfor thiscriterion.Moreover,while
statedthatthepetitionerattemptedto influencepolicymakersregardingtheInternet,
failedtoprovideanyspecificexamplesthatreflectedanysignificantresultsof hiswork.
stated:
[Thepetitioner's]expertiseandadvocacywereamongthefactorsthatledto theU.S.
government's decision, in March 2010, to exempt intemet providers that provide
servicesto Iraniansfromsomeof therestrictionsontradewith Iran. [Thepetitioner]
andothershaveconsistentlyarguedthatensuringthatIraniancitizenshaveaccessto
open communicationsis vital to the efforts of democracyand human rights
advocatesin Iran,andto combattheIranianauthorities'attemptsto stifledissenting
voicesin thecyberspace.
citesto thepetitioner'sargumentof opencommunicationto theeffortsof democracy
andhumanrights. Although indicatedthatInternetproviderswereexemptedfrom
someof the traderestrictionswith Iran, failed to indicatethat the petitioner's
argumentor tradeexemptionhas,for instance,ledto areductionof humanrightsviolationsin Iran
soasto establishhisoriginalcontributionsof majorsignificancetothefield.
Page32
In this case,while therecommendationletterspraisethepetitionerandbriefly describehis work,
theyfail to indicatethathe hasmadeoriginalcontributionsof majorsignificanceto the field.
Thelettersprovideonly generalstatementswithoutofferinganyspecificinformationto establish
how the petitioner's work has been of major significance. While those familiar with the
petitioner'swork generallydescribeit as "important," "valuable," and "groundbreaking,"the
letterscontaingeneralstatementsthat lack specificdetailsto demonstratethat the petitioner's
work is of major significance. This regulatorycriterion not only requiresthe petitioner to make
original contributions,but also requiresthose contributionsto be significant. We are not
persuadedby vague,solicited letters that simply repeatthe regulatorylanguagebut do not
explainhow the petitioner'scontributionshavealreadyinfluencedthe field. Merely repeating
thelanguageof thestatuteor regulationsdoesnot satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof.4 The
lack of supportingdocumentaryevidencegivesthe AAO no basisto gaugethe significanceof
thepetitioner'spresentcontributions.
USCISmay,in its discretion,useasadvisoryopinionstatementssubmittedasexperttestimony.
SeeMatterof CaronInternational,19I&N Dec.791,795(Commr.1988).However,USCISis
ultimatelyresponsiblefor makingthefinal determinationregardinganalien'seligibility for the
benefitsought.Id. Thesubmissionof lettersof supportfrom thepetitioner'spersonalcontactsis
not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmay evaluatethe contentof thoselettersasto
whetherthey supportthe alien's eligibility. Seeid. at 795. Thus,the contentof the writers'
statementsand how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important
considerations.Even when written by independentexperts,letters solicited by an alien in
supportof an immigrationpetition areof lessweightthanpreexisting,independentevidenceof
originalcontributionsof majorsignificance.
Without additional, specific evidenceshowing that the petitioner'swork has been original,
unusuallyinfluential,or hasotherwiserisento the level of contributionsof major significance,
wecannotconcludethathemeetsthiscriterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien's authorshipof scholarlyarticles in thefield, in professional
or mafor tradepublicationsor othermajor media.
At thetimeof theoriginalfiling of thepetition,counselclaimedthepetitioner'seligibility based
on thefollowing submitteddocumentation:
1. An articleentitled,"No to Iran on the HumanRightsCouncil!" April 23,
2010,www.dailystar.com;and
2. A DVD thatcontainedthefollowing:
4FedinBros.Co.,Ltd. v.Sava,724F. Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F. 2d41 (2d.Cir. 1990);Avyr
Associates,Inc.v.Meissner,1997WL 188942at*5 (S.D.N.Y.).
Page33
A. "Speech- Rally in Frontof UN 2009";
B. "[The petitioner's]interview2009";
C. "Iran GreenMovement- 2009";
D. "Importantspeechin Parliament- 2003";
E. "Political experience,interview";
F. "Transitionto democracyin Iran"; and
G. "Voice of America,10thPresidentialElection2009."
Wenoteherethatcounselindicatedin his coverletterthatthepetitionerwasalsoeligiblefor this
criterionbasedon the"[h]istory of theimplementationof theInternetin Iran,its difficulties, and
rules2006." However,counselfailed to specifythe documentaryevidencewhich relatesto this
claim and we find that the recordof proceedingcontainsno relevantdocumentaryevidence
supportingthis claim. We further notethat counselalso indicatedin his cover letter that the
petitionerwaseligiblefor this criterionbasedon the"[s]tatusof informationandcommunication
technologyin Iran, andits difficulties. 2001- 2004. Presentedat WSIS Conference,TUNIS,
2005." Although counselrefersto this claim in footnotenumber66 as"exhibit G-1," areview of
therecordof proceedingfor ExhibitG-1is a singlepieceof papermerelyentitled"Exhibit G-1"
thatcontainsno supportingdocumentation.Withoutdocumentaryevidenceto supporttheclaim,
the assertionsof counselwill not satisfy the petitioner'sburdenof proof. The unsupported
assertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence.Matter of Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.at 534n.2;
MatterofLaureano,19I&N Dec.at3 n.2;MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.at506.
Counselfailed to addressthis criterion in responseto the director's requestfor additional
evidence. In the director's decision, he found that "[t]he record is not supportedby any evidence
thatthe petitionerhasauthoredany scholarlyarticlesin the field." On appeal,counselreiterated
theclaimsmadeatthetimeof thefiling of thepetition.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi)requires"[e]videnceof the
alien'sauthorshipaf scholarlyarticlesin thefield, inprofessionalor majortradepublicationsor
other major media [emphasisadded]." Generally,scholarlyarticles are written by and for
expertsin aparticularfield of study,arepeer-reviewed,andcontainreferencesto sourcesusedin
the articles. In this case,regardingitem 1, the petitioner's article does not contain the
characteristicsof a scholarlyarticleandappearsto be a political opinionor commentaryarticle
ratherthan a scholarlyarticle. As thereis no evidencedemonstrating,for instance,that the
petitioner'sarticle was peer-reviewed,containedany referencesto sources,or was otherwise
considered"scholarly," the petitioner's authorshipof an article is insufficient to meet this
Page34
criterion. Furthermore,thepetitionerfailed to establishthatwww.dailystar.comis a professional
or majortradepublicationor othermajormedia.
Regardingitem 2, the plain languageof the regulationrequiresthat the petitioner author
scholarly articles in professionalor major trade publicationsor other major media. The
submissionof a DVD that containsinterviews,speeches,andtelevisedmediacoverageof the
petitionerdoesnot meettheplain languageof theregulation. Thereis no evidenceestablishing
thatthecontentsof theDVD containthecharacteristicsof a scholarlyarticle,andthattheywere
publishedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidencethat thealien hasperformedin a leadingor critical rolefor organizations
or establishmentsthat havea distinguishedreputation.
At thetime of theoriginalfiling of thepetition,counselclaimedthepetitioner'seligibility for
thiscriterionbasedonthefollowing:
1. Memberof theSixth Parliamentof Iran;
2. DeputyChairmanof TelecommunicationCommittee;
3. Memberof IndustriesCommittee,Sixth Parliament;
4. Memberof CentralCommittee,theOffice of StrengtheningUnity
);
5. ElectionCommitteeChairmanof the Defenderof HumanRights Center
(DHRC);
6. Founder and President of Iran Radio CommunicationsAssociation
(IRCA); and
7. FounderandPresidentof Alumni Organizationof Iran.
We note that counseldid not provide any specificstatementor argumentregardingany of these
claimsbut simplylistedtheaboveitemsin his letterin supportof thepetition. However,regarding
items 1 - 4, counselreferredto the documentaryevidencepreviouslydiscussedunder the
membershipcriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Regardingitem 5,
counselreferredto thedocumentaryevidencediscussedundertheoriginalcontributionscriterion
pursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v).Regardingitem6, in counsel'sfootnotein
his coverletter,he refersto www.ccwmagazine.comandwww.itna.ir. However,the recordof
proceedingfailsto reflectthatcounselsubmittedscreenshotsof eitherof thewebsites.
Page35
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor additionalevidence,regardingitem2, counselsubmittedthe
previouslydiscusseduncertifiedtranslationof a documentreflecting the Internal Proceeding
Rulesfor the ICA. We notethat counselfailed to submitthe original documentto which the
translationpertains.Regardingitem5, counselsubmitteda documentregardingthebackground
of theDHRC. We notethatcounselfailed to identify thesourceof thedocument.In addition,
counselsubmitteda screenshotfrom www.humanrights-ir.orgregardingDHRC. We note
regarding6, counselagainrefersto www.cewmagazine.comandwww.itna.irwithout submitting
thescreenshotsfor thewebsites.Counselalsofailedto addressanyof theotheritems.
In the director'sdecision,he found thatthepetitionerfailed to establishthat he performedin a
leadingor critical role for organizationsor establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation.On
appeal,counselrefersto thepetitioner'spreviouslysubmittedrecommendationlettersasevidence
of thepetitioner'seligibilityfor thiscriterion.
Theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)requires"[e]videncethatthe
alienhasperformedin a leadingor critical role for organizationsor establishmentsthathavea
distinguishedreputation[emphasisadded]." In general,a leadingrole is evidencedfrom therole
itself, anda critical role is onein which thealienwasresponsiblefor the successor standingof
theorganizationor establishment.Basedon the submitteddocumentaryevidencelisted above,
wearenotpersuadedthatthepetitionerhasperformedin a leadingor critical roleconsistentwith
theplainlanguageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
While areviewof therecordof proceedingreflectsthatthepetitionerwasamemberof theSixth
Parliamentin Iran andservedon somecommittees,therecordfalls far shortin establishingthat
his membershipor positionon committeesalsodemonstratesthathe performedin a leadingor
critical role. Although the recommendationletters refer to the petitioner's involvement in
introducing legislation, the petitioner failed to submit sufficient documentaryevidence
distinguishinghim from the other membersof parliament such as the Chairman of the
TelecommunicationCommitteeor evenan individual who is in chargeof the entireparliament.
We cannotignorethat the uncertifiedtranslationof the InternalProceedingRulesfor the ICA
suggeststhat there are severalcommissionsand committeeswithin the Iranian Parliament.
Merely submitting documentationreflecting that the petitioner served in parliament or on
committees is insufficient without documentary evidence establishing that the petitioner
performedin a leading or critical role. Likewise, regarding the
documentaryevidencereflects that the petitioner was a member of the committee and not
evidencethatheperformedin aleadingor critical role.
Even the recommendationlettersfail to reflect that the petitionerperformedin a leadingor
criticalrole. Forexample, stated:
[Thepetitioner]wasmy colleagueon theCommitteefor defendingFreeElections
in Iran,a committeeundermy mainorganization,[DHRC]. In thatcapacity,[the
petitioner] attendedmeetingsand conferencesdomesticallyand internationally.
[The petitioner] and I participated in the InternationalTelecommunication
Page36
Union'sWorld Summiton theInformationSociety(WSIS)conferencein Tunisia
in 2005. [The petitioner] was a very active attendeeand provided significant
contributionsto theconference.
We are not persuadedthat attendingmeetingsand conferencesare reflective of a leadingor
critical role for an organizationor establishment. failed to demonstratethe
responsibilitiesandaccomplishmentsof thepetitionerduringthemeetingssoasto establishthat
heperformedin a leadingor critical role.
Moreover, stated:
[The petitioner] was an official in the forefront of the movementfor reform of
governmentof Iran. [The petitioner] stayed committed to his causesand
continueddefendinghumanrights in differentrolesandcapacities,to nameone;
hejoined at [DHRC]. In that capacityhe wasactivein researching
andproducingmaterialsin regardto fair andopenelection.
Again, we are not persuadedthat researchingand producingmaterialsis evidenceof the
petitioner'sleadingor critical rolefor DHRC.
Furthermore,the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) also requires that the petitioner's
leading or critical role be "for organizationsor establishmentsthat have a distinguished
reputation."Althoughthedirectoraddressedthedistinguishedreputationelementin his decision,
counselonly addressedthe petitioner'sroles on appealand failed to addressthe distinguished
reputationrequirement.Thepetitionerfailed to submitanydocumentaryevidenceregardingthe
TelecommunicationCommittee,IndustriesCommittee,DaftareTahkimeVahdat,IRCA, andthe
Alumni Organizationof Iran,andthepetitionerfailedto submitsufficientdocumentaryevidence
regardingDHRC andtheSixthParliamentof Iransoasto establishthedistinguishedreputations
of theseorganizationsor establishments.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
B. Final MeritsDetermination
In accordancewith theKazarianopinion,we mustnextconducta final meritsdeterminationthat
considersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror notthepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1)
a "level of expertiseindicatingthat the individual is oneof that small percentagewho haverisen
to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor,"8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2);and(2) "that the alienhas
sustainednational or international acclaim and that his or her achievementshave been
recognizedin the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i),and 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3). Seealso Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1115. The
petitionerfailed to establisheligibility for anyof thecriteria,in which at leastthreearerequired
underthe regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case,many of the deficienciesin the
Page37
documentationsubmitted by the petitioner have already been addressedin our preceding
discussionof theregulatorycriteriaat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).
In evaluatingour final merits determination,we must look at the totality of the evidenceto
concludethepetitioner'seligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct. In this case,the
petitioner garneredsome attention regardinghis political and humanitarianwork in Iran.
Specifically, the petitioner was involved in the campaignfor freedom of communication
regardingtheInternet,women'srights,andexposingtheillegal detentionof students.However,
thepetitioner'swork falls far shortof establishingthathe "is oneof that small percentagewho
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor"and that he "has sustainednational or
internationalacclaimand that his or her achievementshave beenrecognizedin the field of
expertise." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i),and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)providesthat"[a] petitionfor analienof extraordinary
ability mustbe accompaniedby evidencethat the alien hassustainednationalor international
acclaim and that his or her achievementshave been recognizedin the field of expertise."
Evidenceof the petitioner'snationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsmustbe
evaluatedin termsof theserequirements.The weightgivento evidencesubmittedto fulfill the
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i),therefore,dependson the extentto which suchevidence
demonstrates,reflects,or is consistentwith sustainednationalor internationalacclaimatthe very
top of the alien'sfield of endeavor.A lower evidentiarystandardwould not be consistentwith
the regulatorydefinition of "extraordinaryability" as "a level of expertiseindicating that the
individual is one of that small percentagewho have risen to the very top of the field of
endeavor."8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2). Althoughthepetitionerfailedto establisheligibility for the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),we againnotethatthe(HH) GrantProgramwasbasedon
the petitioner's expressinghis opinion regardinghis governmentand financial needand not
excellencein thefield. Moreover,thepetitionerfailedto establishthattheHH GrantProgramis
in thepetitioner'sfield of technologyandgovernment.In addition,the purportedawardsfrom
SIAUAT andCCISUappearto havebeenawardedby students.Suchawardsdo not reflectthat
"small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. §
204.5(h)(2). Insteadof earningawardsfrom nationalor internationalexpertsin the field, the
petitionerpurportedlyreceivedawardsthat wereissuedby students.USCIShaslong held that
evenathletesperformingat the major leaguelevel do not automaticallymeetthe "extraordinary
ability" standard.Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec.953,954(Assoc.Commr. 1994);56 Fed.Reg.
at 60899.5 Isikewise,it doesnot follow that a technologyand governmentexpert like the
5While we acknowledgethata district court'sdecisionis not bindingprecedent,we notethat in Matter of
Racine,1995WL 153319at*4 (N.D.Ill. Feb.16,1995),thecourtstated:
[T]heplainreadingof thestatutesuggeststhattheappropriatefield of comparisonis not
acomparisonof Racine'sability with thatof all thehockeyplayersatall levelsof play;
but rather,Racine'sability as a professionalhockeyplayerwithin the NHL. This
interpretationis consistentwith at leastoneothercourt in this district,Grimsonv. INS,
Page38
petitionerwho receivedawardsgiven by studentsshouldnecessarilyqualify for an extraordinary
ability employment-basedimmigrantvisa. To find otherwisewould contravenethe regulatory
requirementat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)that this visa categorybe reservedfor "that small
percentageof individualsthathaverisento theverytopof theirfield of endeavor."
Furthermore,while the petitionerfailed to establisheligibility for the membershipcriterion
pursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii),thepetitionerclaimedeligibility basedon
his popularvoteelectionto the Sixth Parliamentandnot basedon outstandingachievementsof
its membersthat would demonstratenationalor internationalacclaim. Likewise,the petitioner
also claimed eligibility basedon his membershipwith a student
organization.
Thepetitioneralsofailedto establisheligibility for thepublishedmaterialcriterionpursuantto
theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),basedin part on the fact that the articlesbriefly
mentionedor quotedthepetitioner. Thepetitionerfailed to submitpublishedmaterialabouthim
regardinghis work thatwouldbeexpectedfrom anindividualwho is recognizedasonewhohas
risento theverytopof hisfield of endeavor.
Whilethepetitionerfailedto establisheligibility for theoriginalcontributionscriterionpursuant
to theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)andtheleadingor critical role criterionpursuantto
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the petitioner relied almost exclusively on
recommendationletters. Suchletterscannotform the cornerstoneof a successfulextraordinary
ability claim. Further, USCIS may, in its discretion,use as advisory opinion statements
submittedas expert testimony. SeeMatter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795.
However,USCIS is ultimately responsiblefor making the final determinationregardingan
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submissionof lettersof supportfrom the
petitioner'spersonalcontactsis notpresumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmayevaluatethe
contentof thoselettersasto whetherthey supportthe alien'seligibility. Seeid. at 795. Thus,
thecontentof thewriters' statementsandhow theybecameawareof thepetitioner'sreputation
areimportantconsiderations.Even whenwritten by independentexperts,letterssolicitedby an
alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent
evidence.
Finally, we cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive
documentation"of the petitioner's sustainednational or international acclaim. See section
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The commentaryfor the proposedregulationsimplementingsection
No. 93 C 3354,(N.D. Ill. September9, 1993),andthe definitionof the term 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(2),andthediscussionsetforth in thepreambleat56Fed.Reg.60898-99.
Althoughthepresentcasearosewithinthejurisdictionof anotherfederaljudicialdistrictandcircuit,the
court's reasoningindicatesthat USCIS' interpretationof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)is
reasonable.
Page39
203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct providethatthe"intentof Congressthata veryhigh standardbe setfor
aliensof extraordinaryability is reflectedin this regulationby requiringthe petitionerto present
moreextensivedocumentationthanthatrequired"for lesserclassifications.56 Fed.Reg.30703,
30704(July 5, 1991). In this case,the record of proceedingreflectsnumerousnon-certified
English languagetranslations,partial translations,summarytranslations,and foreign language
documentswithout any English languagetranslations. Furthermore,the petitioner failed to
complywith thebasicregulatoryrequirementssuchasprovidingthetitle, date,andauthorof the
publishedmaterialcriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
In addition, counselclaimedthe petitioner'seligibility for the scholarlyarticles criterion
pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)basedon a DVD of speechesand
interviews when the regulation clearly requiresthe authorshipin professionalor major trade
publicationsor othermajormedia. Moreover,counselclaimedthepetitioner'seligibility for the
judging criterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)without submittingany
supportingdocumentation.Similarly,counselclaimedthepetitioner'seligibility for theleading
or critical role criterion, in part, basedon the petitioner's role with IRCA and the Alumni
Organizationof Iran, but failed to submit any documentaryevidenceto supportthe claims.
Likewise, counselreferredto an "Award" from the Sixth Parliamentand two awardsfrom
SIAUAT and CCISU but failed to submit evidenceof theseawards. Without documentary
evidenceto supporttheclaim,theassertionsof counselwill not satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof
proof. Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence.Matter of Obaigbena,
19I&N Dec.at534n.2;Matterof Laureano,19I&N Dec.at3 n.2;Matterof Ramirez-Sanchez,
17 I&N Dec. at 506. We are not persuadedthat an individual with sustainednational or
internationalacclaim could not submit primary evidenceof his accomplishments,and the
numerousdeficienciesandpoorlyprepareddocumentationequateto "extensivedocumentation."
Thepetitionerfailedto submitevidencedemonstratingthathe"is oneof thatsmallpercentagewho
haverisento theverytopof thefield." In addition,thepetitionerhasnotdemonstratedhis "career
of acclaimedworkin thefield" ascontemplatedby Congress.H.R.Rep.No. 101-723,59(Sept.19,
1990).
The conclusion we reachby considering the evidenceto meet eachcriterion separatelyis consistent
with a review of the evidencein the aggregate.Evenin the aggregate,the evidencedoesnot
distinguishthepetitionerasoneof thesmallpercentagewhohasrisento theverytopof thefield of
endeavor. Even when comparedto thosewho submittedletterson the petitioner's behalf, the
petitioner'saccomplishmentsdonotappearto beonparwith thoseattheverytopof thefield. For
instance, m 2005wasnamedby
asoneof theworld's 100mostinfluentialpeopleandhaswrittenmorethan20booksand
articles; haswon severalinternationalhumanrights awards;
regularlycontributesto the New York Times, the WashingtonPost, the Economistand the
InternationalHeraldTribune. Thepetitionerfalls far shortof havingreachedsuchrecognitionand
sustainedacclaim.Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof aclaimof extraordinaryabilitymust
clearlydemonstratethatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandis one
of thesmallpercentagewhohasrisentotheverytopof thefield of endeavor.
Page40
VII. Conclusion
Reviewof the recorddoesnot establishthatthepetitionerhasdistinguishedhimself to suchan
extentthathemaybe saidto haveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandto be
within thesmallpercentageat thevery top of his field. Theevidenceis not persuasivethatthe
petitioner'sachievementssethim significantlyabovealmostall othersin his field at anationalor
internationallevel. Therefore,the petitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theAct, andthepetitionmaynotbeapproved.
An applicationor petitionthatfails to complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelaw maybe
deniedby theAAO evenif theServiceCenterdoesnot identify all of the groundsfor denialin
the initial decision.SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d at 1043,
aff'd,345F.3dat 683;seealsoSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3dat 145(notingthattheAAO conducts
appellatereviewonadenovobasis).
Thepetitionwill bedeniedfor theabovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasanindependent
andalternativebasisfor denial. In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for
thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.
Here,thatburdenhasnot beenmet.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.