dismissed EB-1A Case: Unspecified

, . 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
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 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
FEB 17 2011 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.s.C. § 1153(b)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
j ill')}.j" ·r .. v" ~-- ...... f .... tC. 
i . Perry Rhew 
!J Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petlUon was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, on September 18, 2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of her sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(1 )(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, specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such 
an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that she meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if --
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, 
arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to 
continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and 
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 10 I 51 Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. [d. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate his or her 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 
following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles m the field, m 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has perfonned in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
Page 4 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the perfonning arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.l With respect to the criteria 
at 8 c.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits detennination." Id. 
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)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS detennines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of thelirJ field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "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)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits detennination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel, substantive, or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
II. Translations 
While not addressed by the director in his decision, the record of proceeding reflects that the 
petitioner submitted numerous non-certified English language translations, partial translations, and 
foreign language documents without any English language translations. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b) provides in pertinent part: 
(3) Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator 
has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he 
or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
Because the petitioner failed to comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(3), the AAO 
cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the 
evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
III. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on February 2, 2009, seeks to classify the petitIOner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a scholar/researcher. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to 
the following criteria pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).2 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which 
classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director found that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. Specifically, 
the director stated: 
None of the articles submitted into evidence are primarily about the petitioner as 
opposed to citing the results of her research. The articles do not specifically focus 
on the petitioner or her work or include any information about her. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues: 
[T]he set-up is a straw-man set-up: the director presents my evidence under the 
label of "citations" ... which is to say under the guise that "citations" are 
equivalent to writings by others about me and my work. However, since 
"citations" are clearly not "published material," as the regulatory criterion 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 6 
requires, my specific evidence can thus be dismissed without having actually been 
considered as such. 
* * * 
It is the Director's decision which is written such that it "do[es] not specifically 
focus on the petitioner or her work or include any information about her." That 
is, it is the Director (not me or the "articles") who does not relate what he alleges 
that I have done to any specific objective, independent, pre-existing evidence in 
the record (which evidence, to be independent of the Director's rendering of it, 
must be other than the Director's own words, i.e., it must take the form of actual, 
pertinent quotations/citations but these are entirely missing from the text of the 
Director's decision). 
The Director, it is clear by now, has proven nothing about my evidence. Rather, 
the structure of his argument reveals his reasoning as a petitio principio, for the 
conclusion appears twice in it, at the beginning as something which is (or parts of 
which are) apparently in question (but actually already predetermined) and at the 
end as something that is fully negated. Given the setu-up [sic] identified above, 
this very structure makes the Director's reasoning doubly fallacious. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p]ublished material 
about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the 
alien's work in the field for which classification is sought [emphasis added]." In other words, 
the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about" the 
petitioner relating to her work. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding 
researchers or professors pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act, which only requires published 
material about the alien's work. Articles authored by the petitioner, or articles which cite or critique 
the petitioner's work, are not articles about the petitioner relating to her work. Therefore, we agree 
with the findings of the director. Thus, while her publications and citations therein are not relevant 
to this criterion, they will be considered below as they relate to the significance of the petitioner's 
original contributions under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and authorship of scholarly 
articles under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this 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 allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner's documentary evidence reflecting her peer and 
manuscript reviews failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's participation, either 
Page 7 
individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of 
specification for which classification is sought." Pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22, the 
petitioner submitted sufficient documentation establishing that she meets the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Therefore, we withdraw the findings of the director for this 
criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that she meets the plain language of the regulation for this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
In the director's decision, he found that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "lelvidence 
of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field." In compliance with Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain 
language of the regulatory criteria. 596 F.3d at 1121. Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see 
whether it rises to the level of original scholarly-related contributions "of major significance in 
the field." 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted documentary evidence 
regarding the citation of her work by others. However, the majority of the petitioner's 
documentation reflects uncertified translations, partial translations, and foreign language 
documents without any translations, let alone certified translations. We also note that numerous 
translations fail to identify the specific works of the petitioner that were cited in the articles 
mainly because the petitioner only submitted partial translations. For example, the partial 
translation of "Patterns Without Value: On the Functionalization and Marginalization of the 
Pattern Dissertation" claims: 
English translation of the relevant passages: 
p. 162: 
"Freed from the burden 
p. 163: 
of symbolizing something, or rather, never charged with meaning 
in its capacity as an ornament, the arabesque assumes a referential 
character. 159 
159 Gumbrecht/Pfeiffer (1993): p. 106. 
There is no indication that the work is credited to the petitioner, let alone the name of the 
petitioner's work that was cited. We further note some of the translations contained comments 
that do not appear to be in the original document that was translated. For example, the partial 
translation of "Representation" contains a commentary note by the translator claiming: 
Page 8 
[Note: Instead of summarizing the existing research on the so-called "crisis of 
representation" in his own words, indicating borrowed phrases by quotation 
marks, and then referencing his sources, the author, 
taken over the very words and ideas of the beginning article 
on the "crisis of representation" in the German-language Historical Dictionary of 
Philosophy.] 
While the translation is both uncertified and partial, the translator clearly failed to provide a 
"complete and accurate" translation pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) as the 
translator made unsupported claims in the partial translation. Because the petitioner failed to 
comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(3), the AAO cannot determine whether the 
evidence supports the petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not 
be accorded any weight in this proceeding. Therefore, we will only evaluate the petitioner's 
documentary evidence that clearly establishes that her work was cited by others in the field. A 
review of the record of proceeding reflects that her work was 
others in her field. The two most cited articles 
and Again, while the petitioner's work may have been cited 
more than 32 times, we can not evaluate the petitioner's documentary evidence that fails to 
comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Moreover, without documentary evidence 
that clearly reflects the citations of the petitioner's work by others, we will not infer or second­
guess the documentary evidence before us. 
While the number of total citations is a factor, it is not the only factor to be considered in 
determining the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. Generally, the number of citations is 
reflective of the petitioner's original findings and that the field has taken some interest to the 
petitioner's work. However, it is not an automatic indicator that the petitioner's work has been 
of major significance in the field. In this case, we are not persuaded that the total number of 32 
citations, as well as 11 and 10 each for the two most cited articles, is reflective that the petitioner'S 
work has been majorly significant to the field. Furthermore, as the petitioner only submitted partial 
and selected translations of the articles that cited the petitioner's work, as well as some articles in 
the English language, the petitioner failed to establish that the articles that cited the petitioner's 
work have been unusually influential, such as articles that discuss in-depth the petitioner's findings 
or credit the petitioner with influencing or impacting the field. In this case, the petitioner's 
documentary evidence is not reflective of having a significant impact on the field. Merely 
submitting documentation reflecting that the petitioner's work has been cited by others in their 
published material is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion without documentary 
evidence reflecting that the petitioner'S work has been of a major significance in the field. We are 
not persuaded that the citations of the petitioner's articles are reflective of the significance of her 
work in the field. The petitioner failed to establish how those findings or citations of her work 
by others have significantly contributed to her field as a whole. 
A further review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted documentary 
evidence reflecting that she participated in approximately 19 conferences and meetings by 
Page 9 
presenting her papers. Again, while the presentation of the petitioner's papers demonstrate that the 
petitioner's work was shared with others and may be acknowledged as original contributions based 
on the selection of them to be presented, we are not persuaded that presentations of the petitioner's 
work at various conferences and meetings are sufficient evidence establishing that the petitioner's 
work is of major significance to the field as a whole and not limited to the engagements in which 
they were presented. In fact, the record contains several letters from individuals who merely 
confirm that the petitioner participated at the venues by presenting her papers. The petitioner failed 
to establish, for example, that the presentations were of major significance so as to establish their 
impact or influence beyond the audience at the conferences. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted recommendation letters from several individuals. While the 
recommendation letters praise the petitioner for her work as a scholar in literature and indicate 
her original findings, they fail to indicate that her contributions are of major significance to the 
field. The letters provide only general statements without offering any specific information to 
establish how the petitioner's work has been of major significance. 
A • • -- _ .. "I 
The Example of _ 
_ Whileiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil"has been among the 
top selling publications in recent years," we are 
not persuaded that the a of the petitioner's 
work beyond _ Moreover, indicated that the petitioner has a "rare, rich 
and varied educational and academic and "[tlhis knowledge and the international 
~ her research have enabled her to bring a unique and important perspective to 
___ he failed to indicate that the petitioner has made original contributions of 
major significance to the field. Assuming the petitioner's skills are unique, that issue properly 
falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. The issue of whether similarly-trained 
workers are available in the United States is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
Labor through the labor certification process. See Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 
22 I & N Dec. 215, 221 (Commr. 1998). 
Henry Carrigan, Jr. , Senior Editor at Northwestern University Press, 
I am extremely interested in 
human thought proposed 
most intricate thinkers in W,>d,>rn lIlllelH'ClIual 
[lJ'(;~1! research on the theories of 
of the 
of an interior logos or ratio as the basis of our notion of rationality, 
exemplary in its comprehension and clarity, strikes me as groundbreaking; it 
would be very well placed in the philosophical book series at Northwestern 
University Press. [The petitioner's J published work and contributions of 
significance to her field result from her rare expertise and extraordinarily detailed, 
well crafted writing. In all of her work, she has made significant contributions to 
the academic community, adding to the base of knowledge in various topics, 
including Austrian literature, silence and language, in an accessible fashion that 
Page 10 
both offers new insights to the reader and demonstrates her deep expertise and 
scholarly research methods of research. 
Again, to identify any original contributions of major 
significance to the field. Instead, his personal interest in the petitioner's 
work, speculated that her work could be placed in a book series, and generally indicated that the 
petitioner "made significant contributions to the academic community" without explaining the 
original contributions and how they have been of major significance to the field. 
described the petitioner's work as "revolutionary," "groundbreaking," "of 
imloortan,,,," and "of enormous significance." However, while ••• IIi ••• 
_ discussed the petitioner's research relating to failed to indicate 
that her work has been of major significance to the field. For failed to provide any 
specific examples of how the petitioner's work has influenced or impacted the field in a 
significant manner. Similarly, although that the petitioner's research 
is significant to "understanding of intercultural transmission," he failed to identify a single 
example where the petitioner's work has been applied in the field. _stated: 
[The petitioner I has broken new ground with her innovative approach to the 
analysis of translation - its logic can readily be adopted by other researchers in a 
search for new understandings of the relation between the translation of any 
literary work and its original source text. What is more, [the petitioner's] 
paradigmatic insights are immediately applicable to translation pedagogy, 
contributing to the process of training young translators to work at a high level of 
expertise [emphasis added]. 
to indicate that others in the field have applied or are currently utilizing the 
petitioner's "innovative approach." to the petitioner's work in future 
applicability and possibility. Likewise, stated that the petitioner's "work is not 
derived, but original, and thus holds out prospects for creative cross pollinations between such 
disciplines as philosophy, mathematics, and literary studies, to name a few [emphasis added]." 
Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of' 
Katighak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg!. Commr. 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 
I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent 
to the filing of a petition." [d. at 176. A petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification 
based on the expectation of future eligibility. The assertion that the petitioner's work is likely to 
be influential is not adequate to establish that her findings are already recognized as major 
contributions in the field. Moreover, while ~ated that the petitioner's "paradigmatic 
insights are immediately applicable to translation pedagogy," she failed to indicate if they 
actually been applied by others throughout the field. In addition, to indicate 
Page II 
that the petitioner's work is currently be used in the field; instead 
work "holds out prospects." 
that the 
The petitioner also submitted recommendation letters that discussed the petitioner's contributions 
to the references in the letters but failed to indicate that the . made original contributions 
of major significance to the field. For example, petitioner's 
assistance in translating the work of discussed the 
petitioner's contributions to 
~tated that "I have greatly benefited from her UUIIl':,m;u 
~tation, and even if I have not always referenced this influence it has been a 
constant grounding for my understanding of the field of representation studies." 
_ated that "I wrote as a testimony of its for my own work and its relevance for 
future research in the humanities in Brazil." that the petitioner's 
"essay on _rinciple of translation "!\"'llll~lll 
understand~c that my life's work is dedicated." 
have drawn attention to 
to awakening this very 
that "I 
the petitioner's references are impressed with her work and discussed the contributions 
of the petitioner, as well as citing her work in their own work, they failed to provide sufficient 
information establishing that her work is of major significance beyond their own work. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted reference 
of scholarly articles. For example, 
discussed the petitioner's article, 
that the petitioner's articles "have pieces on their respective topics," 
and tated that "I know of several courses on the "crisis of representation" that 
have been taught by colleagues at German universities over the last years," they failed to provide 
specific information such as identifying a single reference or university that has offered courses 
on the petitioncr' s work. 
While those familiar with the petitioner's work describe it as original and generally state that it is 
significant, the letters contain general statements that lack specific details to demonstrate that the 
petitioner's work is of major significance. This regulatory criterion not only requires the 
petitioner to make original contributions, but also requires those contributions to be significant. 
We are not persuaded by vague, solicited letters that simply repeat the regulatory language but 
do not explain how the petitioner's contributions have already influenced the field. Merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. 3 The lack of supporting documentary evidence gives the AAO no basis to gauge the 
significance of the petitioner's present contributions. 
3 Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avvr 
Associates. Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Page 12 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
original contributions of major significance. 
According to the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not 
only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is 
not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. Without extensive documentation showing 
that the petitioner'S work has been unusually influential or widely accepted throughout her field, 
or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot 
conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. 
In the director's decision, although he found that the petitioner published articles in academic 
and literature journals, he found that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion 
as the petitioner's work was not cited extensively by others. The plain language of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[elvidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in 
the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media." Pursuant to 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122, the petitioner submitted sufficient documentation establishing that she 
meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Therefore, we withdraw 
the findings of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that she meets the plain language of the regulation for this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner's counsel claimed her eligibility 
based on the presentation of her work at conferences. We note that counsel did not address this 
criterion in response to the director's request for evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(8). Moreover, the petitioner did not address this criterion on appeal. Accordingly, we 
consider that issue to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir.2005). We note that the petitioner's presentations at conferences were previously 
discussed under original contributions criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct 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 thelirJ field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 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." See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1115. The 
petitioner met the plain language of the regulation for two of the criteria, in which at least three 
are required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case, many of the deficiencies 
in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding 
discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In evaluating our final merits determination, we must look at the totality of the evidence to 
conclude the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act. In this case, the 
petitioner has authored some scholarly articles, made presentations at conferences and meetings, 
served as an editor and reviewed manuscripts, and has had her work cited by others in the field. 
However, the accomplishments of the petitioner fall far short of establishing that she "is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" and that she "has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." The 
petitioner's evidence must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to 
evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), therefore, depends on the 
extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary 
standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a 
level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
While we determined that the petitioner met the judging criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), an evaluation of the significance of the petitioner's judging experience 
is sanctioned under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-11. The . submitted documentary 
evidence reflecting that she served as an editor 
Page 14 
Literature in 1994, reviewed two manuscripts served as 
1I!!!!!!!!!~!!!!!!!II ••••••• and served as a reviewer and examiner for two of 
__ aduate students. We note here that the petitioner submitted several documents claiming 
that they established her participation as a judge of the work of others, but a review of the 
documentary evidence fails to sufficiently esta~ed the claimed material. For 
example, the petitioner submitted a letter from __ who stated that the petitioner 
"has been frequently been sought out as a panelist to judge the work of other scholars" and "has 
served on three hiring committees that demand judgment of the work of others." _ 
letter lacks any specificity demonstrating that the petitioner has judged the work of ~ 
_ ailed to indicate who "sought out the petitioner," what the petitioner reviewed, and the 
ibilities of the on the committees. The . also submitted a letter 
from who 
"agreeing to Howe~ner failed to 
submit documentary evidence establishing that she actually reviewed_ Similarly, 
the petitioner submitted samples claiming that she reviewed the articles but failed to submit 
independent, objective evidence demonstrating that she actually reviewed the articles. 
Nonetheless, the documentary evidence reflects that the petitioner's claimed achievements as the 
judge of the work of others to be, in part, the work of students. The petitioner failed to submit 
evidence demonstrating that she judged acclaimed medical professors, scientists, or physicians 
rather than residents and students. Ct, Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 
1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899 (USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major 
league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard). We cannot 
conclude that the petitioner's minimal participation as a reviewer of students demonstrates a 
level of expertise indicating that she is among that small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Further, we note that peer review is a 
routine element of the process by which articles are selected for publication in literary or 
scholarly journals or for presentation at literary conferences. Occasional participation in the peer 
review process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a 
professional obligation of professors or scholars who publish themselves in journals or who present 
their work at professional conferences. Normally a journal's editorial staff or a conference 
technical committee will enlist the assistance of numerous professionals in the field who agree to 
review submitted papers. It is common for a publication or technical committee to ask multiple 
reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The publication's editorial staff or the 
technical committee may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining whether to 
publish, present, or reject submitted papers. Without evidence pre-dating the filing of the 
petition that sets the petitioner apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has 
received and completed independent requests for review from a substantial number of journals or 
conferences, served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, or chaired a technical 
committee for a reputable conference, we cannot conclude that the petitioner is among that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Page 15 
Furthennore, a review of the credentials of the individuals who submitted reference letters on the 
petitioner's behalf demonstrates that there is stark contrast between their experiences and the 
claimed experience of the petitioner. For example, the references have the following experiences 
as judges: 
1. 
2. 
3. 
When compared to the petitioner, the petitioner's references have considerably distinguished 
themselves based on their editorial and review experience. We also determined that the 
petitioner met the authorship of scholarly articles criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). A review of the documentary evidence reflects that the petitioner submitted 
six scholarly articles. We note that the petitioner also submitted an additional six articles without 
any English language translations, let alone certified translations. Furthermore, the petitioner 
submitted an additional 15 documents reflecting her translations of the works of others. Again, 
however, when compared to the authorship of those in his field, the record reflects: 
1. - Authored 4 books and 38 articles; 
2. __ - Authored 43 articles and 23 conference papers; 
3. ~ Authored 88 articles; 
4. - Translated 47 articles, chapters, and books; and 
5. ~uthored 57 articles. 
Although the petitioner met the plain language of the regulation through her co-authorship and 
authorship of scholarly articles, she has not established that the moderate publication of such 
articles demonstrates a level of expertise indicating that she is among that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). As authoring 
scholarly articles is inherent to scholars, we will evaluate a citation history or other evidence of 
the impact of the petitioner's articles to determine the impact and recognition her work has had 
on the field and whether such influence has been sustained, For example, numerous independent 
citations for an article authored by the petitioner would provide solid evidence that her work has 
been recognized and that other researchers have been influenced by her work. Such an analysis 
at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122, 
On the other hand, few or no citations of an article authored by the petitioner may indicate that 
her work has gone largely unnoticed by his field, As previously discussed, the petitioner 
submitted documentary evidence reflecting that her work has been independently cited 32 times. 
While these citations demonstrate some interest in her published work, they are not sufficient to 
demonstrate that her articles have attracted a level of interest in her field commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner also submitted documentary evidence reflecting 
approximately 19 presentations at conferences and meetings. However when compared to the 
petitioner's references, the number of the presentations by the petitioner's references are far 
above the accomplishments of the petitioner. For example: 
1. _-33 presentations; 
2. 49 presentations; 
3. 43 presentations; and 
4. _-110 presentations. 
As indicated previously, the petitioner submitted numerous recommendation letters. It must be 
emphasized that the favorable opinions of experts in the field, while not without evidentiary 
weight, are not a solid basis for a successful extraordinary ability claim. Again, uscrs may, in 
its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission 
of letters from individuals, especially when they are colleagues of the petitioner without any 
prior knowledge of the petitioner's work, supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's 
eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter {~f V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008). 
Finally, we cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive 
documentation" of the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for 
aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present 
more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30704 (July 5, 1991). In this case, the record of proceeding reflects uncertified translations, 
partial translations, and foreign language documents without any English translations. We are 
Page 17 
not persuaded that such evidence with the numerous deficiencies noted equate to "extensive 
documentation" and is demonstrative of an individual with sustained national or international 
acclaim. The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. 
Matter of Chawathe. 25 I&N Dec. at 376 citing Matter of E-M- 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r. 
1989). 
The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent 
with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
IV. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an 
extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at lO43, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.