dismissed EB-1A Case: Writing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 15, 2023 In Re: 27693286 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a writer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A). This first preference 
classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary 
ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not established that her entry into the United States 
will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. We will also enter a finding of willful misrepresentation of material facts. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit the 
United States. 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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis . First, a petitioner 
can demonstrate international recognition of the individual's achievements in the field through a one­
time achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can 
submit evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x), 
including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and scholarly articles. If those 
standards do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4) allows the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we assess whether the record shows sustained national or international 
acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field 
of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, claims to have been a published writer since 1997, 
writing four volumes of poetry, a book of short stories, and a novel. Her poems have also appeared in 
various newspapers, and in 2016 she began working as a script writer for Voice of Bangladesh. The 
Petitioner entered the United States in November 2020 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor. 
A. Willful Misrepresentation of Material Facts 
Before we discuss the merits of the appeal and the underlying petition, we begin with a finding that the 
Petitioner willfully misrepresented material facts in this proceeding. 
Misrepresentation of a material fact may lead to multiple consequences in immigration proceedings. Any 
noncitizen who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure ( or has sought to 
procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit 
provided under the Act is inadmissible. Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 182(a)(6)(C)(i). 
Under Board of Immigration Appeals precedent, a material misrepresentation is one which "tends to shut 
off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility and which might well have resulted in a 
proper determination that he be excluded." Matter ofS- and B-C-, 9 I&N Dec. 436,447 (BIA 1961). 
A willful misrepresentation requires that the individual knowingly make a material misstatement to a 
government official for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. 
Sergueeva v. Holder, 324 Fed. Appx. 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Matter ofKai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 
288, 289-90 (BIA 1975). Material misrepresentation requires only a false statement that is material and 
willfully made. See 9 FAM 40.63 N2; see also Matter of Tijam, 22 I&N Dec. 408, 424 (BIA 1998) 
(en bane) (Rosenberg, concurring). The term "willfully" means knowing and intentionally, as 
distinguished from accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief that the facts are otherwise. See 
Matter ofHealy and Goodchild, l 7 I&N Dec. 22, 28 (BIA 1979). 
The Petitioner submitted printouts of several articles purporting to be from various online newspapers. 
Efforts to verify the Petitioner's evidence, by following the web links printed on the submitted articles, 
showed that at least three of these articles were falsified, with the Petitioner's name, photograph, and 
other information inserted into existing articles that were actually about other people. 
2 
The earliest claimed article, attributed to Ju an tor onl I 2019, includes photographs of eight 
individuals, with the Petitioner.__r-------.--~ The text of the submitted article lists the names of 30 
people, with the Petitioner's name in the list. The web address on the printout actually leads to an 
article froml l2022, showing seven of the same eight photoraph,, with another person's 
photograph in place of the Petitioner's. A different person's name is the listed. The Petitioner's 
name does not appear. 
The second claimed article, said to have appeared on the Bengali website! I 
D2019, also includes photographs of eight individuals, with the Petitioner's imagel 
I I
I 
In the submitted p1intout, the Petitioner's is thQof eight listed names. The atiicle at the 
web address provided shows seven of the same photographs, with a different individual shown instead of 
the Petitioner, and theOlisted name is not the Petitioner's name. The Petitioner's name is not listed 
at all on this version. 
The third claimed article, attributed to~nd datedl I2019, pmpmis to be solely about 
the Petitioner's claimed receipt of thel___J Award. The authentic article at the link provided, 
however, is datedl 12022, and names a different author as the winner of the I !Award. 
The info1mation summarized above indicates that the Petitioner, or someone acting on her behalf: altered 
authentic articles from 2022 by inserting her name and photograph, and backdated those articles to 2019. 
Because the genuine online newspaper articles originated outside the record of proceeding, we issued a 
notice of intent to dismiss (NOID) on August 15, 2023, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l6)(i). We 
advised the Petitioner that, if she were unable to rebut and overcome this derogatory information, we 
would dismiss the appeal with a finding that the Petitioner had willfully misrepresented material facts. 
In response, the Petitioner states: 
All the news articles I intended to provide were from 2019. At that time,!.______ ___. 
.____________ ~were focused on printed versions and their online portals 
were not properly updated. After the Covid-19 pandemic, all of these newspapers started 
updating their online portals. Due to upgradation of their portals and server, many articles 
could not be updated and some were mistakenly deleted. As a result, many links to these 
portals were faulty and they did not work. Instead, these links redirected to other news 
articles.... 
We have provided the proper article's links ... and also collected signed statements from 
the Editors of those newspapers that there [sic] articles were authentically published. 
The Petitioner claims that the links she provided "redirected to other news articles," but we have shown 
that the authentic articles are largely similar to the printouts the Petitioner submitted, except that they do 
not include her name or image. The names and photographs of the other people in those articles appear 
in the same order as in the printouts that the Petitioner submitted. 
3 
Critically, the Petitioner submits no evidence to corroborate her claim that the articles were accidentally 
deleted from the websites of.___________________ ~during portal or server 
upgrades. Instead, she claims that exactly the same articles also appeared on three other websites. The 
Petitioner submits letters attributed to the editors ofl I and 
.__________ _, attesting that their respective websites carried the articles described above. The 
letters contain web addresses that lead to articles that match the printouts that the Petitioner had previously 
submitted. 
The three u orted editors do not claim or document an affiliation between I 
'-----r----------.---------------~rbetween"'" I=_.__ ______ ....., 
and._________ _, and they do not claim that they took their articles from the other named 
publications. The letters do not explain why the newly linked articles are identical to the printouts that 
the Petitioner had previously submitted, attributed to three different publications. 
It is the petitioner's responsibility and burden to resolve any inconsistencies in the record with 
independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice 
without competent objective evidence pointing to where the trnth, in fact, lies. See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582 (BIA 1988). The Petitioner's response to the NOID does not meet this standard. 
Without credibly corroborated explanations, the appearance of identical articles on different websites 
raises questions about the trne origin ofthe articles. The Petitioner has not submitted evidence to establish 
that the newly submitted links were operational at the time of their claimed publication in 2019, or that 
the articles at those links existed on any website in 2019. 1 We note that the Petitioner had previously 
submitted other printouts from.__ _________________ ___. published in 2020, 
but she did not claim at that time that either of those publications had published the newly-claimed articles 
about her in 2019. 
The Petitioner has not established that the printouts she previously submitted are authentic articles 
published by.__ ________________ ~in 2019. The Petitioner had specifically 
submitted the printouts as evidence in supp01i of material claims. Her attempts to explain the derogat01y 
evidence raise more questions. We conclude, therefore, that those originally submitted printouts were 
falsified in order to support the petition. The active substitution of the Petitioner's name and image in 
place of the names and images of other people shows that the falsification was willful rather than 
inadvertent. 
The information in the falsified articles is material to the petition because it relates to eligibility criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (ix), pertaining, respectively, to prizes and high remuneration. 
For the above reasons, we find that the Petitioner willfully misrepresented material facts in seeking to 
procure a benefit under the Act. 
1 The newly claimed I !article at httosl hs datedl 12019. 
The next consecutively numbered web address, httpsJ I, shows the same photograph of 
the Petitioner, the Petitioner's first name, and a publication date otl I2023 about three weeks after 
we issued the NOID, and four days before the date of the letter attributed to the publisher oti I 
4 
A petition can only be properly approved upon a determination that the facts stated in the petition are true. 
See section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 154(b ). Doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may 
undermine the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Therefore, we may view other record evidence through the lens of 
the Petitioner's diminished credibility. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied six of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not met any of the claimed criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that she meets all the claimed criteria. We will discuss these claimed criteria below. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner submitted letters and copies of certificates relating to three claimed awards: 
• A Certificate of Excellence from Voice of Bangladesh for writing the scripts for the~I--~ 
'------,-----,_,Movement and Book Publication Campaign"; 
• The Award "for Overall Contribution to Bengali Poetry" at the 20191.______ ____. 
described as an annual Bengali poetry festival; and 
• The'-- ____ _.Award from the Bengali Cultural Forum in 2019. 
A letter attributed to the president of the Bengali Culture and Culture Forum [sic] states: "This award is 
a recognition of [the Petitioner's] commitment, talent and continued effort for Bengali Literature." A 
letter attributed to the chairperson of the 2019 I I calls the Petitioner "a very big 
name in the poetry scene in Bangladesh." 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the Petitioner had "not provided sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that each award ... is nationally or internationally recognized." The Director 
requested further information about the awards and their recognition. 
In response, the Petitioner claimed that the awards attracted media attention. She submitted printouts of 
articles purportedly published in 2019 by.__ _______________ ____. As discussed 
above, based on the evidence of record, we have concluded that these articles are altered versions of 
articles about other people. Therefore, we do not give these articles any evidentiary weight. 
5 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to show that the claimed 
awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The Petitioner must establish the recognition of the 
awards she received. Information about the awarding entities, or the events where she received the 
awards, do not suffice in this regard. 
On appeal, the Petitioner describes previously submitted evidence, including "letters from award[ing] 
organizations confoming the awards' selection criteria and their national scope and reputation." Letters 
from the awarding entities alone are not direct evidence ofrecognition of the awards beyond those entities. 
The only submitted evidence of wider recognition of the awards is in the form of claimed online articles 
which, for reasons discussed above, have no credibility or weight in this proceeding. 
The falsified articles also raise doubts about the authenticity of the letters and certificates attesting to the 
Petitioner's receipt of the claimed awards. See Mattr of Ho, i19 I&N Dec. at 591. The certificate 
purporting to show the Petitioner's receipt of the 2019 Award is dated 2009. The low image 
resolution of submitted photographs relating to the Petitioner's claimed awards makes it difficult to draw 
fom conclusions about their authenticity. 
The Petitioner has not established her receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. 
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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner submitted materials attesting to her membership in the I !Academy, the~ 
Literature Club (USA), and the I Icenter for Public Service and the Arts L_J 
~The Petitioner did npi...sll.bl;nit any information about the membership requirements for the 
L___J Literature Club or the[___JCenter. 
A letter attributed to a fellow of the I !Academy lists "certain rules to be a member of._l_ ____. 
Academy." According to this letter, members must be citizens of Bangladesh "over 30 years old," who 
have "published books" and are "endorsed by a I !Academy fellow." The Petitioner has not 
established that any of these requirements amount to outstanding achievements. A separate letter, 
attributed to the general director of thel !Academy, does not discuss membership requirements but 
specifies that the Petitioner "has been a member of thel !Academy since 1996." The Petitioner 
turned 22 years old in late 1996. Therefore, this letter contradicts the claim that members "have to be 
over 30 years old." The Petitioner has not established the membership requirements of the I 
Academy at the time she joined in 1996. 
The Petitioner also submitted a photocopy of her press pass from I Th1 Petitioner did 
not establish that I lis an association in the field. The pass identifies I _ as an "Online 
Newspaper & News Agency," and states the Petitioner's title as "Sub Editor." This indicates that the 
Petitioner was an employee of a news organization, rather than a member in an association. 
6 
I 
In Tsponsl to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted information about thel !Academy and 
the Center, but this information does nol specify the membership requirements for either 
organization. A letter attributed to the director of the Center includes this passage: "[The Petitioner] 
hal great1y contributed in [sic] the cultural sector of Bangladesh. Hence, she was accepted as a member 
of Center." This letter does not establish that such contributions were a requirement to become a 
member. The Petitioner submitted screen captures from theD Center's website, but these images do 
not show membership requirements. 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE also included this statement: "Bangladesh Television Playwright 
Association (BTPA): [The Petitioner] has been a member of BTPA since 2010. Membership in BTPA 
requires that a person must first establish herself in the country's culture and literature. Exhibit E." 
Exhibit E includes a letter attributed to the president of the BTPA. But the letter does not say that the 
Beneficiary is a member of the BTPA. Rather, the author of the letter described the purported 
membership requirements in "the cultural and literature organization named j I" 
(GSA). The individual stated: "To be a member ofl Ione has to be an established 
personnel [sic] in cultural or literature sector of Bangladesh. He/she has to be recommended by 3 
renowned persons of this sector. After this initial process, we hold a 6 month evaluation period." The 
letter indicates that the Petitioner "completed these steps and became a member of our organization in 
2010." 
The author of the letter does not claim to be an official of the GSA, and the record does not contain first­
hand documentation, such as the GSA's bylaws, to confirm the membership requirements or define the 
term "established person." Therefore, the letter does not suffice to establish that the GSA requires 
outstanding achievements of its members. The record does not establish what connection, if any, exists 
between the newly-claimed GSA and the I !Literature Club (USA) named in the initial filing of 
the petition. 
The Director dete1mined that the Petitioner had not established that any of the Petitioner's claimed 
memberships require outstanding achievements. On appeal, the Petitioner describes past submissions, 
but the exhibits described on appeal do not meet the regulatory requirements. For example, the Petitioner 
describes thel I Academy as "an autonomous institution funded by the government to foster Bengali 
language, literature, and culture." The Petitioner does not explain how these facts establish that her 
membership in thel !Academy meets the regulatory requirements. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements for this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldfor which classffication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner initially submitted copies of 13 articles from newspapers in Bangladesh, either printouts 
from websites or ]:hotocopies of print articles. Two aiiicles are reviews of her writings. Three a1iicles 
cover al 2020 event in the Petitioner's honor, hosted by a New York publisher. The rest are all 
interviews or biographical profiles of the Petitioner, containing general information about her 
background, her career, and her beliefs. 
7 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted copies of three articles from._________ ____, All 
these articles were published in 2022, more than a year after the Petitioner filed the petition in March 
2021. These materials cannot establish that the Petitioner met all eligibility requirements at the time of 
filing the petition as required at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The Petitioner also submitted some of her own 
published poems, which are published materials by her, rather than about her as the regulation requires. 
The Director dete1mined that the Petitioner had not established that the articles appeared in qualifying 
major media. But the Petitioner submitted circulation data attributed to the Information Minist1 of 
Bangladesh, indicating that thatl are 
"top national dailies in Bangladesh." 
Although the Petitioner has established that some of the articles appeared in major media, the published 
materials are deficient for other reasons. 
Most of the articles are in Bengali, with English translations. Foreign-language documents must include 
a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and the 
translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b)(3 ). The submitted translations do not include the required ce1tifications. 
None of the aiticles has an author credit as required by the regulation. The anonymity of the authors is 
particularly significant given the proximity oftheir publication - all the initially claimed articles appeared 
between~------~2020, shortly before the Petitioner filed the petition in March 2021 - and 
the broad similarity of several articles to one another. The English translations of aiticles from I I
I lboth published the same day, are identical to one another. Both 
of those translations have the same basic structure as an English-language article with the same title, 
published da s earlier in As discussed above, other articles from I I 
and were published under questionable circumstances. Likewise, the translations 
of three articles from,__ ____, 2020 - published in
I I- include some identical passages. 2 .___________________ __. 
The published materials submitted by the Petitioner do not meet all the regulatory requirements. Apart 
from deficiencies such as anonymous authorship, some of the claimed articles have been falsified as set 
fo1th above, and others are highly questionable due to circumstances such as identical wording. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements for this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe display ofthe alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
2 The shared language is consistent with a common source, particularly a passage that uses a first-person pronoun: "[the] 
President of Muktodhara ... told us 'New York Bengalis accepted her with [sic] full of joy" ( emphasis added). Even if 
the articles truly appeared in the named newspapers, the unexplained use of this identical language in what purport to be 
three independently published newspaper articles would raise questions about the circumstances of their publication. In 
this case, given the submission of other falsified newspaper articles and the Petitioner's unsatisfactory explanations for 
other anomalies relating to published material, the three anonymous I 12020 articles have diminished credibility. 
8 
The Petitioner claimed to satisfy this criterion because she "has contributed to Bengali literature through 
her six books" which "have been well received. . . . [S]he has also published poems and short stories in 
national-level newspapers." The Petitioner submitted copies of published poems and photographs of 
book jackets. 
Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases involves public showings. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.2(B)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The Petitioner has not established that there 
have been public showings of her work, as distinct from print publication of that work. The record does 
not show that the newspapers reproduced in the record are artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The Petitioner submitted photographs of herself at various gatherings, but she did not establish that any 
of these gatherings were showcases or exhibitions of her litera1y work. 
In the RFE, the Director identified evidence that the Petitioner could provide to satisfy the criterion. The 
Petitioner's response to the RFE did not address or mention the display criterion. Therefore, the Director 
concluded the Petitioner had not met the criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner repeats the assertion that her work has been published, but the Petitioner does 
not explain how print publication amounts to display at an artistic showcase or exhibition. Without that 
information, she has not met her burden of proof to show that her evidence meets evidentiary 
requirements. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner submitted copies of publishing agreements and letters from publishers. Many of these 
documents do not specify amounts paid to the Petitioner or provide the necessary basis of comparison 
between the Petitioner's remuneration and that of others in the field. Some contracts specify percentage­
based royalty rates, with no indication as to whether the Petitioner's rates were higher than others in the 
field. A 1999 contract with.__ _____ ____. specified weekly payments of 20,000 Bangladeshi Taka 
(BDT) relating to one of the Petitioner's books. Five years later, a 2004 contract with I I 
specified quarterly payments of 100,000 BDT for another book. Those contracts also cited percentage 
royalty rates. The contracts do not appear to specify whether the fixed amounts are applied against, or 
added to, the percentage figures. 
The publisher of the newspape~ lstated that the Petitioner "is one of the top paid contributor[ s] 
of our paper." This vague assertion is not sufficient to satisfy the criterion. The requirement is a high 
salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field. The Petitioner did not 
establish that the range of remuneration paid to I !contributors is representative of the field. In the 
absence of such information, being among the highest-paid writers at one newspaper is too narrow to 
satisfy the criterion. By the same reasoning, another letter calling the Petitioner "one of the top paid 
writer[ s ]" atl Idoes not permit the required field-wide comparison. 
9 
Documents show that Voice of Bangladesh hired the Beneficiary "on [a] contract basis for the position 
of a Script Writer," with a starting monthly salary of 20,000 BDT in 2016. An invoice from mid-2020 
shows that the amount had risen to 50,000 BDT per month. The Petitioner did not provide any basis for 
comparison to give context to these figures. 
Undated vouchers froml Ishow three payments of30,000 BDT each. One voucher indicated 
that the Petitioner consulted on "manual development on popular theatre"; the second voucher referred 
to "training facilitation for popular theatre training"; and the third stated that the Petitioner received a 
"consultancy fee for children's book writing." Once again, there is no basis for comparison with others 
in the field. Also, without more details, the vouchers do not show that the Petitioner was paid for working 
as a writer or poet, for other services, or some combination thereof. 
In the RFE, the Director stated that the Petitioner "did not provide sufficient financial documentation 
(e.g., payroll records or income tax forms) demonstrating [her] actual earnings for any given period of 
time." The Director requested reliable documentation of the Petitioner's earnings in her field and 
evidence to show how her earnings compare to others in her field. 
The Director also stated that the Petitioner "provided evidence for Bangladesh," and needed to show that 
her remuneration was high "in relation to others in the field, in the United States." We agree with the 
Petitioner that she need not compare her past remuneration to writers in the United States, because she 
earned that remuneration in Bangladesh. Nevertheless, the burden remains on the Petitioner to establish 
the actual amount of her remuneration and provide a reliable basis for comparison to show that her 
remuneration is high in relation to others in the field. 
The Petitioner's response did not include any objective documentation of her earnings. She submitted a 
printout of a purported I !article, calling the Petitioner '1 !Academy's best-selling author." 
As discussed earlier in this decision, we have concluded based on the evidence that this article is not 
authentic. The provided web address links to a different article from three years later. 
The Petitioner submitted letters attributed to four different publishers in Bangladesh. Three of the letters 
called the Petitioner the highest paid writer in Bangladesh; the fourth states that she is "one of the most 
bestseller [sic] writers of Bangladesh." The letters are not supported by documentary evidence. 
The Director denied the petition, stating that the Petitioner had not fully documented her earnings or 
provided an objective basis for comparison with other writers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that her "earnings through works of literature are shown by the 
documents" submitted previously. As shown above, the Petitioner has provided only fragmentary 
documentation of her earnings, and she has not submitted any objective basis to show that those earnings 
are high in relation to others in the field. Letters calling her the highest-paid writer in Bangladesh have 
limited evidentiary value in the absence of other independent objective evidence. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this criterion. 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner does not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of 
three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Detailed discussion of the remaining claimed criterion, 
concerning participation as a judge of the work of others under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), cannot 
change the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve this issue. 3 For the same reason, we also 
reserve the issue of whether the Petitioner's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten lesser criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion 
that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown recognition of her work at a level that 
shows sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates a "career of acclaimed work in the 
field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is 
one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner claims to be among the best-selling 
authors in Bangladesh, but her evidence is fragmentary and lacking in credibility, particularly given 
her submission of altered or falsified articles. The genuine, verifiable articles about the Petitioner all 
appeared within a short window of time coinciding with the Petitioner's travel to the United States 
and do not reflect the decades of acclaim that the Petitioner claims to have earned. Book sales are a 
matter of measurable, objective fact, and therefore documentary evidence ought to exist to support the 
claim that her books are bestsellers, but the Petitioner has not submitted such evidence. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. We will 
therefore dismiss the appeal. We also find that the Petitioner has willfully misrepresented material 
facts relating to claimed news articles from 2019, as discussed above. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 ( 1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
11