dismissed EB-1A Case: Writing And Poetry

PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
EAC 05 195 5 1783 
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. 4 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Ths is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
~7 Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, 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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability.' 
The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualifjr for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner "has sustained national and international acclaim and that his 
achievements are recognized in the field through extensive documentation." 
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 whch has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Citizenship and Irnmigrat ion Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seekng immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 1991). As used in 
this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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). The 
specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the 
petitioner must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on June 22, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
"writer and poet." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained 
1 
The petitioner was initially represented by attorney Philip Stoffer. In this decision, the term "previous counsel" 
shall refer to Philip Stoffer. 
national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least 
three of whlch must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability7' 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. 5 204.5(h)(2). As discussed below, we find that the petitioner's evidence is not 
sufficient to meet any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the Jield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted an award certificate stating: 
Rawal Theater 
Rawalpindi (Pakistan) 
Present [sic] 
This Award 
to 
Best Drama Writer 
[The petitioner] 
on his experimentalPlay [sic] 
"A letter to God" 
Staged on July 13, 1998 
The petitioner also submitted an award certificate fkom the "Institute of Urdu Language New York" stating: 
"This Certificate is Awarded to Well Known Poet of New Era [the petitioner] on His Best Book of 2004 
'TAWAAN. "' 
On February 23, 2006, the director issued a request for evidence noting that the record lacked evidence 
demonstrating "the significance of these prizes" and instructing the petitioner to submit evidence of his receipt of 
recent prizes or awards including a statement fi-om the institutions that granted the awards commenting on the 
number of awards given, the criteria for granting the awards, and the number of individuals eligible to compete 
for the awards. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter dated "4-5-2006" fro- Director of Performing Arts, 
Rawal Theatre, Palustan, stating: 
Page 4 
It is certified that [the petitioner] was awarded best script of Drama "A letter to God," staged and 
presented in the "Festival of Experimental Dramas 98." At Liaquat Memorial Hall, Rawalpindi, 
under the auspices of Rawal Theatre, in Jul: 1998 [sic]. 
Rawal Theatre is very active and popular section of "LIGHT" (NGO) to create the awareness in the 
masses through stage drama/skits. 
Six different Drama groups from and 
 presented their 
plays under the following titles in Urdu and Punjabi languages: 
1) 
 Tanhaee (lonliness) [sic] New Trend Theatre Group - Peshawar. 
2) 
 Aag men Phool (Roses in Fire) Sunshine Drama Group - Azad Kashmir. 
3) 
 A Letter to God, Art Circle, Islamabad. 
4) 
 Saline ki Kahani (A story of Salma) Tamseel Group, Lahore. 
5) 
 Waris Shah kahan ho (Waris Shah, Where you are?), Natak, Rawalpindi. 
6) 
 Men kyun Ro Raha hoon (Why I am crying) Raj Theatre, Wah. 
were the honorable judges. 
After the week long festival, the judges announced the following name[s] for award with the cash 
prize of Rs.5000/- each. 
Thus, out of the six drama groups participating in the event, three received awards. The petitioner's response 
included no information regarding the criteria for granting the precdng best drama script award. Nor is there 
contemporaneous evidence of national or international recognition associated with the petitioner's award. 
The petitioner's response also included a May 15, 2006 letter from resident, Institute of Urdu 
Language New York, stating: 
Institute of Urdu language (Urdu Markaz New York) was established in 1989, to promote the literary 
and cultural values and working towards the International recognition of Urdu language. The 
organization initially confined its activities by holding Mushairas, (Poetry recitation) Seminars, 
Lectures and special evening with poets, writers and singers and awed by the over whelming response 
to it [sic]. 
Urdu Markaz awarded [the petitioner] as a best Urdu poet of the year 20004 [sic] on his newly 
published book "Tawan" (Collection of his poetry). 
Contrary to the instructions in the director's request for evidence, the petitioner's response included no 
information indicating the criteria for granting his award or the number of awards given. Nor is there 
contemporaneous evidence of national or international recognition associated with the petitioner's award. 
The petitioner also submitted photographs of the following: 
1. Plaque dated November 20, 2005 from 
 ' Islamabad, Pakistan "in 
recognition of [the petitioner's] outstanding contribution to promote Urdu Literature abroad & On 
his Thrd Poetry Collection 'TAWAAN. "' 
2. Plaque dated December 6, 2005 from 
 Pakistan stating that the petitioner 
received a "Best Overseas Pakistani Poet of 2005 Award . . . For his Excellent Poetic Services in 
North America & Palustan[.]" 
We note that items 1 and 2 above were issued to the petitioner subsequent to the petition's filing date. A 
petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $ 103,2(b)(12); see Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Comm. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider these certificates in this 
proceeding. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards 
be nationally or internationally recognized and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. 
Regarding the petitioner's awards from the Rawal Theater and the Institute of Urdu Language New York, we find 
that these awards reflect institutional recognition rather than national or international recognition. In this case, the 
petitioner has not shown that his two awards commanded significant recognition beyond the presenting 
organizations. For example, there is no evidence such as national press coverage surrounding the petitioner's 
awards or other evidence of national or international recognition of the awards. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which classzfication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achevements of its members. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner "submitted his membership card of the International Congress of 
Writers, Artists & Intellectuals." The record, however, includes no such evidence, nor was the membership 
card identified in the petitioner's lettered listing of exhibits submitted to CIS. Without documentary evidence 
to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 
(BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). Moreover, there is no evidence that admission to membership in the preceding organization 
required outstanding achievements, as judged by national or international experts in the petitioner's field. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major mela. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication or from a publication printed in a language that the 
vast majority of the country's population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.2 
The petitioner submitted articles appearing in publications such as Daily Dawn, Star, Muslim, The News, 
Pakistan Times, Times Mag New York (Urdu Times Weekly Magazine), and Daily Din. We note that the 
foreign language articles submitted by the petitioner, such as the articles in Times Mag New York, were not 
accompanied by English language translations as required by both the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3) and 
the plain language of this criterion. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign 
language submitted to CIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that 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. Further, there is no evidence that the preceding publications are 
professional, major trade publications or other major media. 
Regarding the published material in Times Mag New York, although a proper English language translation 
was not submitted, this material appears to be written by the petitioner rather than being "about" the 
petitioner. Such material does not satisfy the plain regulatory language of the criterion. In response to the 
director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted two April 27, 2006 letters from Khalil-ur-Rehman, 
Editor and Publisher, Urdu Times, Jamaica, New York. The first letter states: "I offered [the petitioner] to 
work with Urdu Times as a freelance journalist, he accepted our offer and wrote for the culture and literary 
section in Urdu Times Weekly Magazine (Times Mag) for the past two years." Even if the petitioner were to 
submit proper English language translations showing that the materials in Times Mag New York were "about" 
him, it has not been shown that this periodical is a form of major media. In that regard, Khalil-ur-Rehman's 
second letter states: 
Urdu Times is North America's first Urdu newspaper, as well as the largest circulated Urdu 
publication in the world outside of Pakistan. . . . Urdu Times extended the area of publication by 
2 
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 Prince 
William County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that 
county. 
adding cities and is now publishing simultaneously out of New York, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, 
Miami, Detroit, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Toronto, Montreal, London, Birmingham, 
Manchester; and is still growing. Currently, Urdu Times' circulation exceeds 80,000 copies 
worldwide. 
It has not been established that Urdu Times newspaper and Times Mag New York (Urdu Times Weekly 
Magazine) are one in the same. Further, because Urdu is not the predominant language in the United States, 
Canada, or Great Britain, it has not been shown that an article appearing in this publication constitutes 
published material in "major media." Appearance in a publication read by only a small segment of a 
country's population, whether in the United States, Canada, or Great Britain, is not evidence of national or 
international acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits materials printed from the internet sites of pakistanlink. com, 
nazariapak. info, and theamericanmuslim. org. The two articles posted on the former two internet sites only 
mention the petitioner's name once in passing and are not primarily about lum. The latter internet site posted 
one of the petitioner's poems among those of numerous other poets. This posting represents material written 
by the petitioner rather than material "about" the petitioner. Finally, the record includes no evidence showing 
that the preceding internet sites have substantial national or international readership or otherwise constitute 
major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he 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 alliedjield of speciJication for which class$cation is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 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. 5 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a 
national competition for professional writers is of far greater probative value than judging a local competition for 
students or amateurs. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a March 13, 2006 letter from 
, Stat ion Director, Palustan Broadcasting Corporation, Lahore, stating: 
[The petitioner] participated in various ' (Poetic Gatherings) organized by Radio Pakistan 
and received immense appreciation from general listeners and his contemporaries, as well. He has 
another quality of considering all artistic works on Merit Basis. Radio Palustan engaged him in several 
occasions as adjudicator and he adjudged the contestants on merit. 
Previous counsel states that the preceding letter is evidence showing that the petitioner "participated as Judge in 
1998 for All Pakistan Yo 
 oetry Recitation) arranged by Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, 
Lahore (Radio Pakistan)." 
 s letter, however, does not state that the petitioner participated as a 
judge at an "All Palustan Youth" contest, nor does it specify the year of 1998. As stated previously, the 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533,534; 
Matter of laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 1 ; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 503,506. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter dated "05-12-05" fi-om 
 Director, Pakistan National 
Council of the Arts, stating: "It is certified that [the petitioner], Deputy Director, Pakistan National Council 
of the Arts was designated as Judge in the National Drama Festival 1994 under the auspices of Pakistan 
National Council of the Arts." 
We do not find that the preceding letters from 
 andre adequate to demonstrate 
that the petitioner meets this criterion. The plain language of this criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's 
participation . . . as a judge of the work of others." Primary evidence of the petitioner's participation is of far 
greater probative value than letters of support prepared several years after the competitive contests occurred. 
In this instance, there is no evidence of, for example, the names of the individuals evaluated by the petitioner, 
their level of expertise, the specific literary works judged, or any other documentation of the petitioner's 
assessments (such as judging slips, event programs identifying him as a judge, or a judge's credential from 
the events). The record also lacks supporting evidence establishing the significance of the events at which the 
petitioner served as a judge (such as national media coverage surrounding the contests). The benefit sought in 
the present matter, however, is not the type for whch documentation is typically unavailable and the statute 
specifically requires "extensive documentation" to establish eligibility. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. 
The regulations governing the present immigrant visa determination have no requirement mandating that CIS 
specifically accept the credibility of personal testimony, even if not corroborated. The commentary for the 
proposed regulations implementing this statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a very hlgh 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). 
Without substantive evidence of the petitioner's participation as a judge of the work of others in his or an 
allied field that is consistent with national or international acclaim, we cannot conclude he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientlJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjkance in the field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, previous counsel simply asserted that the petitioner's 
freelance work for Urdu Times, his work as a compiler, his poetry, plays and dramas were sufficient to meet 
this criterion. On appeal, counsel asserts that the several letters of support submitted by literary experts in the 
field show the recognition associated with the petitioner's work. In general, the opinions of experts in the 
field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. CIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. Thus, the content 
of the experts' 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 that 
one would expect of a poet or writer who has sustained national or international acclaim. Given the statutory 
requirement for "extensive documentation" and the ten regulatory criteria requiring specific evidence of 
accomplishments, we must conclude that evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition 
generally carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. 
While the petitioner's letters of support attest to his talent, describe his activities, and list his work they do 
not establish that the petitioner's artistic contributions are of major significance to the field. For example, the 
letter from, Adjunct Instructor, Urdu, Department of Middle Eastern Studies, New York 
University, states: 
[The petitioner] is a well-known progressive poet of Urdu language from Palustan. Three collections 
of hs poems, Kh wa b Azaa b Hu 'e (Dreams Become Torture - 1 992), Neend Musaafr (Sleep Traveler 
- 1995), and Tau 'van (RANSOM - 2004), have been very well received in Pakistan and among Urdu 
readers in India and the USA. 
As a poet, [the petitioner] has voiced the longings of the people of Pakistan for democracy and 
freedom. He has spoken out against fundamentalism and worked to minimize ethnic and sectarian 
tensions in Palustan. He regards it as a responsibility of the intellectual to bring up these issues and 
problems. He has worked for the freedom of press and improvement of relations between India and 
Palustan by malung efforts to communicate with Indian writers. He has supported the creative efforts 
of other writers and poets of Urdu in India and Pakistan by compiling three anthologies of short 
stories and three collections of poetry and has further served the writing community by compiling the 
Directory of Writers and Poets of Pakistan ( 1 980). 
Additional letters of support from individuals such as 
 and offer similar 
descriptions of the petitioner's work. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. See Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters., 5 19 
U.S. 202, 209 (1 997); Bailey v. US., 51 6 U.S. 137, 145 (1995). The record here does not establish that the 
petitioner's work has made scholarly or artistic contributions of major significance to his field in a manner 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of acclaim and vague claims 
of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify contributions and provide specific 
examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. We do not question the evaluations of the 
petitioner's talent and the quality of hs writing. The statute and regulations, however, do not permit us to 
make subjective evaluations of literary talent. At issue overall is whether the petitioner has made original, 
major contributions to his field in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. The 
petitioner has not submitted evidence showing his influence on other writers or journalists; that the literary 
field has somehow changed as a result of his work; that his work is routinely assigned in literary, political 
science, or Urdu culture courses nationwide; or that he has otherwise made original contributions of major 
significance to his field in a manner indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that he 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. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of hs authorship of three books of poetry. These books of poems by the 
petitioner are literary works rather than "scholarly articles . . . in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media." The record also includes no evidence that the publication of the petitioner's books is consistent 
with or indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. For example, there is no evidence indicating the 
number of copies in circulation, the number of copies sold, or the scope of the petitioner's readership. In regard 
to the petitioner's journalistic articles, we note that they were unaccompanied by certified English language 
translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Further, the petitioner has not established 
that these articles were "scholarly" or that they were published in major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, previous counsel indicated that this criterion was not applicable. 
On appeal, counsel does not specifically challenge the director's finding that this criterion has not been met. 
Evidence that the alien has peformed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, previous counsel indicated that this criterion was not applicable. 
On appeal, counsel does not specifically challenge the director's finding that this criterion has not been met. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
In addressing the petitioner's evidence for this criterion, the director stated: "The record contains a 'pay slip' 
from the Pakistan National Council of the Arts for 2000. However, there is no comparative evidence to 
establish that the [petitioner] has enjoyed compensation in excess of that enjoyed by others in the field." The 
plain language of thls criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of a "high salary . . . in relation to 
others in the field." On appeal, the petitioner submits no evidence that his compensation was significantly high 
in relation to others in his field. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofJice recebts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support and other documentation showing his work as a playwright for 
television, radio, and onstage productions and as a lyricist for musical recordings. Ths criterion calls for 
evidence of commercial success in the form of "sales" or "receipts"; simply submitting evidence indicating that 
the petitioner has worked as a playwright or lyricist cannot meet the plain language of this criterion. For 
example, the petitioner has submitted no evidence of ticket sales for the onstage productions for which he 
wrote scripts or compact disc sales for the songs that he wrote. The record includes no evidence of 
documented sales, receipts, or other similar evidence showing, for example, that the petitioner's plays were 
regular sell-out performances or had substantial attendance, that his radio and television broadcasts attracted a 
substantial national audience, that the songs he wrote had a high national or international sales volume, or that 
he otherwise achieved commercial success in a manner consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate hs receipt of a 
major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to 
establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
Other comparable evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) states: 
 "lf the above standards do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility." [emphasis added]. This regulation allows for the submission of "comparable evidence," but only 
if the ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes 
the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for visa 
preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). In fact, previous counsel and the petitioner have argued that eight of the regulatory 
criteria apply to the petitioner's field. Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of these criteria, the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable 
evidence. On appeal, although counsel does not specifically request consideration pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4), we will briefly address counsel's arguments regarding certain documentation that has not 
already been discussed under the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) and how ths documentation is not 
adequate to demonstrate the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner's response to the director's re uest for evidence included photographs of a sketch of the petitioner. 
On appeal, counsel states: " one of Pakistan's leading painters, has made sketches of select 
literary figures . . . . [The petitioner's] sketch hangs along with other sketches at the picture gallery of Pakistan 
etters in Islamabad." The record, however, includes no evidence establishmg the reputation of 
or the Pakistan Academy of Letters. Nor is there evidence fi-om ths institution specifically 
identieing the section in which the petitioner's sketch hangs or the requirements for an individual's sketch being 
included in its gallery. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that he has participated in various poetry-recitation programs 
throughout his career. In regard to the petitioner's poetry presentations, we note that the record contains no 
documentation demonstrating that participation in poetry readings is unusual in the petitioner's field or that 
the invitation to present at events where the petitioner appeared was a privilege extended to only a few top 
writers. Nor is there evidence distinguishmg the petitioner from the other program participants, such as 
evidence showing that the petitioner's poetry presentations commanded an unusual level of attention that he 
headlined the programs, or that he has served as an event moderator in the same manner as 
who, according to evidence submitted by the petitioner, moderated at the Fourth People's Poetry Gathering in 
New York in 2006.~ 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished hmself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set hm significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) 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. Q: 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 
 We note that the petitioner's participation in this event occurred subsequent to the petition's filing date. As 
stated previously, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12); see 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 45. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the evidence of the 
petitioner's participation in this event in thls proceeding.