dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identilymg data deltIed to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit)i 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
JUL 3 0 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~$-
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification for the beneficiary as an "alien of extraordinary ability" pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim of 
the beneficiary necessary to qualifY for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner 
must submit qualifYing evidence on behalf of the beneficiary under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, 
upon review of the entire record, the AAO upholds the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
l. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 sl Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 FJd 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the 
court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation 
of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. I With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the signiticance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "tinal merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
~ 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
[I. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director discussed the submitted evidence and found that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
evidence was qualifYing. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. 
Sepulveda v. us. Aft'y Gen., 401 FJd 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. 
Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Hristov v. Roark, No. 09--CV-273 1201 I, 
2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he failed 
to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The director discussed the submitted evidence and found that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
evidence was qualifYing. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. ld 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other mqjor 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of fhq material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion through articles "n11e",rin,,, 
and two television stories on 
The director found that the article in _was not about the petitioner and on 
appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's With regard to the television shows, the 
petitioner submitted a letter from and a DVD, purportedly of the 
programs. However, the DVD is not in a format that was accessible by the AAO and the letter is 
unsigned. Therefore, neither the letter nor the DVD has any evidentiary value. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be appear in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. To qualifY as major media, the publication should have significant 
national or international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
particular locality but would qualifY as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike 
small local community papers.3 
<0111<111'11'15 articles, on appeal the submitted two standardized letters 
a letter from information regarding 
and circulation data for 
Regarding the letter from it was unsigned and is therefore insufficient. 
With regards to the information stating that has a 
daily circulation of 280,000 and that the total circulation is 140,703, the self-
serving nature of this information from the newspaper's publisher is not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
publication is a form of major media. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (concluding that the 
AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's 
status as major media). 
~ard to the two standardized letters from the stating that 
__ and are "class 'A'" newspapers are as media in 
obiective rankings from an independent source) showing the 
distribution and relative to other Nepali media to demonstrate that 
the newspapers qualifY as major media. Furthermore, merely repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfY the petitioner's burden of proof.4 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language requirements 
of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director found that the petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of the regulation at 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the AAO concurs with that finding. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director discussed the submitted evidence and found that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
evidence was qualifYing. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
3 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. 
For example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
4 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15. 
Page 6 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. 
Sepulveda v. US Auy Gen., 401 FJd 1228 n. 2, Hristov v. Roark, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9 (plaintiffs 
claims were abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The director found that the petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of the regulation at 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the AAO concurs with that finding. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the/ield. 
The director discussed the submitted evidence and found that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
evidence was qualifYing. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. 
Sepulveda v. US Ally Gen., 401 F.3d 1228 n. 2, Hristov v. Roark, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9 (plaintiffs 
claims were abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
B. Continue to work in the area of extraordinary ability 
This is an employment-based classification that requires that the alien seek to enter the United States to 
continue working in his area of expertise. Section 203(b)(I )(A)(ii) of the Act. It is "by virtue of such 
work" that aliens under this classification will substantially benefit prospectively the United States as 
envisioned under section 203(b)(I)(A)(iii) of the Act. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Congress did not intend for aliens of extraordinary ability to immigrate to the United States and remain 
idle. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5,1991). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
No offer of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States 
nor a labor certification is required for thi s classification; however, the petition must be 
accompanied by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue 
work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective 
employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her 
work in the United States. 
While the record does contain a statement from the petitioner regarding his intention "to open up a kite 
making institute," the statement lacks sufficient detail to satisfY this requirement. Therefore, beyond the 
director's decision, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not submitted qualifYing evidence under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
C.Summary 
As the petitioner did not submit qualifYing evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is 
that the petitioner has failed to satisfY the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top ofthe field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F .R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination. 5 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfY the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. [d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 FJd 143,145 
(3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
detennination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(ii). See also section 
103(a)(l) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1,2003); 8 
C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § I 03.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) 
(holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).