dismissed EB-1A Case: Writing

(b)(6)
-.__ -- - ... \ 
DATE: - fEB 2 8 2013 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
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 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(.l)(A) ofthe Immigration ~d Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
-Enclosed please fmd 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 ca~e must be made to that office~ 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considen:id, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordancewith the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal orMation, with a fee of$630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103,5. Do not tUe any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
• 
Ron Rosenberg . , 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office · 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)Page2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska 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. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an -
alien of extraordinary ability in the arts as a writer. The director determined that the petitioner had 
not established the requisite_ extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. The director also determined that the petitioner had failed to 
demonstrate that he is among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner- demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C .. F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. The director determined that 
the petitioner's evidence had met the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), and 
(iv), ·but that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim at 
the very top_ of the field. 
On _appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets eight of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Counsel further states the petitioner "has risen to the very 
top of his fieid and that he possesses sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
of achievements." The AAO acknowledges that the standard of proof is preponderance of the 
-evidence, as noted by counsel on appeal. The "preponderance of the· evidence" standard, 
however, does not -relieve the petitioner from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements . 
required by the statute and regulations. Therefore, if the statute and regulations require specific 
evidence, the petitioner is required to-submit that evidence. 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)(2) and (3). In this matter, the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence 
that he has -achieved sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's determination that the 
petitioner has not establish~ his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, 
while the AAO affirms the director's finding that' the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence 
that meets the plain language of the judge of the work of others criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the AAO withdraws the director's findings that the petitioner's evidence meets 
the nationally or internationally recognized awards criterion and the published material about the 
alien criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iii). Accordingly, the petitioner has failed 
(b)(6)
i t 
/ 
Page 3 
to demonstrate that he satisfies the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
·Further, as will be explained in the AAO's final merits determination, the evidence that technically 
qualifies under the judging criterion at 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) reflects participation that is not 
consistent with a finding that the petitioner enjoys sustained national or international acclaim at the 
very top of the field. As will be discussed further in the final merits determination, while counsel 
notes the caliber of the references who support the petition, ·their accomplislunents and comments 
only reinforce the AAO's conclusion that the very top of the petitioner's field is far higher than the 
level he has achieved. . · 
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 docwnentation, 
(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. · 
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 immigr~t visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st 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. ld.; 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and. the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence: 
(i) bocwnentation of the ~lien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(b)(6)
' l 
Page4 
(ii) Docwnentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their memb~s, 
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; 
I , 
(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, in 
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 performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(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 performing 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 . .USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) affd in 
part 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.'- 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 m 
a 
subsequent "final merits determihation." !d. at 1121-22. 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO bad .unilate~lly imposed novel substantive or evidentiary ~equirements 
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). 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
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 typ_es of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." !d. 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 determines 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 ofthe[ir] 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.~(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained nationaJ or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A)(i). 
!d. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will apply the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on May 2, 2012, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary . . 
ability as a writer. Counsel notes that the petitioner has worked "as a journalist, television write~ 
and playwright." The petitioner has submitted. documentation pertaining. to the following 
categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).Z 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of (esser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regu~atory criterion. 
The petitioner asserts that he received a 
that was published by 
from 
for his novel 
The petitioner submitted a April 23, 2012 letter 
stating: 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not .discussed in this . 
decision. 
(b)(6)
Page6 
This letter confirms that [the : petitioner l was the winner of the 
for his novel [The petitioner's] 
highest number of votes of the seven books nominated in the 
novel received the 
category. 
Books are nominated by the and lea~ing 
publishers, and reflect the top titles .published in the preceding year. The 
award is administered by online book retailer and results are 
published on the site. 
Receipt ofa award in the fiction category represents a significant · 
honor for an author. Hundreds of books are eligible annually for this award, yet only a 
select few arf' nnm1m:ttPA l'lnti only one title is declared the winner. Last vear. the general 
wtnner was historical narrative 
·and.the winner in the category was [the petitioner's] 
The petitioner · also submitted posted on the 
website, but the English language 
translation accompanying the results was not certified by the 
translator and was not a full English language translation as required by the regulation at 
8 C.F.K § 103.2(b)(3). Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 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 Em!lish. /d.__Ihe submitted results indicate that _ received a total 
of 499 votes in the category .. The AAO is not persuaded that receiving the 
· highest number of votes on the . website constitutes excellence in the literary 
field. 
The director issued a request for additional ~vidence plirsuant to ~e regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(8) stating that "no actual photo or photocopy of an award has been provided." The 
director specifically requested the petitioner to provide a copy of his prize 9r award certificate, or 
a clear photograph of his prize or award. In response, counsel states: "Regrettably, .the photo is 
unavailable." Counsel fails to explain why primary evidence of the petitioner's award is 
unavailable. Rather than submitting primary evidence ofthe petitioner's 
the petitioner instead submitted an April 23, 2012 letter from his book publisher 
asserting that he received th~ award. A petition must be filed With any initial evidence required 
by the regulation. 8 C.F .R. § 1 03 .2(b )( 1 ). The nonexistence or. other unavailability of required 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). When relying on 
secondary evidence, the petitioner must provide documentary evidence that the primary evidence 
is either unavailable or does not exist. Id; When relying on an affidavit, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that both primary and ~econdary evidence are unavailable. ·/d. In this instance the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that primary evidence of his 
does not exist or cannot be obtained . -----
On aooeal, the petitioner submits what counsel Claims is. "a printout from the 
website," but the submitted material does not bear an internet address to demonstrate its 
(b)(6)Page 7 
specific source. Counsel points to "extensive media attention that was generated by [the 
petitioner's] receipt of the award" and reference letters commenting,on the petitioner's receipt of 
the award. 
The petitioner submitted an English language translation of a March 14 _ ?011 interview that was 
purportedly broadcast on the in stating that his novel 
"won the prize but the petitioner failed to submit a video recording of the 
segment or a copy of the show's television transcript in the language. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing 
Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). According to 
the "Work Experience" listed on the petitioner's resume, the petitioner has worked as a 
''Program Development Expert" for since 2010. In addition, the submitted interview 
translation states that the petitioner is "responsible for program development at The 
preceding interview by the petitioner's colleague at the television station where he worKs does 
not establish that his award is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in 
the literary field. None of the other television interview translations submitted by -the petitioner 
specifically mention him as_ having won a 
The petitioner submitted an April 16, 2010 book review of newspaper, but 
the submitted article does not mention the petitioner's award. The petitioner 
also submitted a March 9, 2011 article posted on the website of. newspaper, "The news of 
' (emphasis added) stating: "The alum of the , in 
_ 
_ [the petitioner] won th~ prize for author of the best 
According to the internet screenshot submitted by the petitioner, the March 9, 2011 ary:icle on 
website had generated only "1318 views" and "2 comments" as of January 20 2012. 
The petitioner has not established that media coverage limited to ' and in 
an online article -with only 1318 views demonstrates that his award is a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence in the literary field. In addition, the petitioner 
submitted a 2010 interview in magazine, but the article does not mention the 
petitioner's award. · The petitioner also submitted a March -8, 2011- article 
· posted 
at an online student "Portal for Education and Science." stating that the 
oetitioner ''won the award in the category _ for his novel ' 
• _ According to the internet screenshot submitted by the petitioner, the March 8, 
2011 article posted at had 1 09 positive responses and zero comments as of July 
12, 2012. The petitioner's doc~mentation also included a: March 8, 2011 article posted on the 
internet site of his alma mater, the_ and at 
and an additional unidentifiable internet 
address stating that he won a - - - - - -. There is no documentary evidence 
showing that the preceding websites have signific~t national or international readership, or that 
the online articles submitted by the petitioner otherwise demonstrate the national or international 
3 The petitioner received a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism-Mass Communication from'the 
(b)(6)
i. 
Page 8 
recognition of his award. None of the remaining published articles submitted by the petitioner 
mention his receipt of the award. 
The petitioner submitted a February 21, 2012 letter from retired 
stating that he has 
collaborated with the petitioner in the past on "a four-volume study of classical . dramatic 
monologues ranging from the Greek tragedians to Bernard Shaw." The AAO notes that. 
has also taught at . , _) where the petitioner received 
his Master of Fine Arts degree in 1999.4 further states: "[The petitioner's] second 
novel, was written last year. . 
. . Its achievement was immediately recognized in 
where it won the nation's award - the equivalent of our Pulitzer 
Prize." The petitioner also submitted a Februarv 20, 2012 letter from 
currently a who taught with in the 
states: ' 
' - . 
highest Literary Prize, the which 1s eqmvatent m Importance 
to the Booker Prize in England." There is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's · 
award is nationally recognized in let alone that it has a level of 
recognition or di..:tinc.tion P.nniv:~lP.nt to that of the Pulitzer Prize or the Booker Prize, the two 
awards to which compare the petitioner's award. With regard to 
and comments, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. 
The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Further, if 
USCIS fails to believe that a fact stated in the petition is true, USCIS may reject that fact. 
Section 204(b) oftheAct, 8 U.S.C. §1154(b); see also Anetekhai v. I.N.S., 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 
(5th Cir.1989); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705F, Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C.l988); Systronics 
Corp. v.·INS, 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15(D.D.C. 2001). 
The petitioner has failed to submit evidence demonstrating the national or international' re~ognition 
of his The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the 
field of endeavor and it his burden to establish every element of this criterion. There is no 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's award was recognized beyond the presenting 
organization, his employer, his alma mater, or his references at a level commensurate with a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
Furthermore, the AAO notes that the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
requires qualifying "prizes or awards" in the plural. The use of the plural is consistent with the 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly,· 
not all of the criteria. at 8 C.F~R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Spedfically, the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) require service on oruy a single judging panel 
or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the 
plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of 
4 The petitioner submitted a July 8, 2006 article in Sega newspaper that identifies as the petitioner's 
"professor at the university." In addition, the petitioner submitted "Biographical Information" about 
indicating that he was a visitirig professor at 
(b)(6)Page9 
experience must be in the form of"letter(s)." Thus, the AAO must conclude that the plural in the 
remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld 
users' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a 
regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 
26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) 
(upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's . degree or "a" 
foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a 
combination of academic credentials). Therefore, even if the petitioner were to establish that his 
neets the elements of this criterion, which he has not, a single qualifying 
award does not meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the.fieldfor which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be about the petitioner and, 
as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality 
but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local 
communitypapers .5 . ' · ·. 
The petitioner submitted English language translations of interviews of him that were purportedly 
broadcast on: 
With regard to the pre.ceding ·English language translations, the petitioner failed to submit a 
video recording of the segment featuring him or a copy "of the show's television transcript in the 
language. As previously discussed , going on record without supporting documentary 
5 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washingion Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, 
Virginia·, for instance, cannot serve to spread an. individual's reputation outside of that county. 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting tqe burden . of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Sofjici, 22 I&N Dec .. at 165. Further, the plain ·language of this regrilatory criterion 
requires "published material about . the alien" including "the title, date and · author of the 
material." A television show purportedly featuring the petitioner does not meet these 
requirements. Further, while the petitioner submitted general information about the preceding 
television networks from Wikipedia and the networks themselves, the petitioner did not submit 
evidence indicating the viewership of the specific pt:ograms on which he was interviewed. With 
regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content 
from this open, user-edited internet site.6 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 
909 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the AAO will not assign weight to information for which 
Wikipedia is the source. In addition, regarding the self-serving information submitted from the 
television networks themselves, USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. 
Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, affd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9) (concluding that the AAO did not· 
have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as 
major media). 
The petitioner submitted a June 2006 article about himself in magazine entitled· 
While the petitioner submitted information about the magazine from its website, 
the petitioner failed to submit any independent, objective evidence establishing that 
magazine is a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. As 
previously discussed, USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, at 
680. 
·The petitioner submitted a J~ne 2006 article about himself in magazine entitled 
but the author of the article was riot identified as required by 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The petitioner also submitted 
a June 2006 review of his book but once again, the author was 
not identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. Further, the book 
review is about the petitioner's book, not the petitioner himself. The plain language of th~ 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204;5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about the alien" 
relating to his work rather than simply about. the petitioner's work. Compare 8 C.F.R. 
6 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals· and groups working to develop a 
common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet · 
connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothin~ found here h~s nece~sarily been reviewed by 
peopl~ with the expertise required to . provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. . . . 
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. .The content of any given 
article may recently hav~ been . changed, vandalized or altered by ·someone whose opinion does not 
correspond with the state ofknowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on February 11, 2013, copy incorporated 
into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)Page 11 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers or professors pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(B) 
of the Act (requiring evidence of published material about the alien's work). See also Noroozi v. 
Napolitano, 11 CV 8333 PAE, 2012 WL 5510934 at *1, *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2012); also see 
generally Negro-Plumpe v.· ·akin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show or a character within a show are not about the 
performer). Moreover, there is no documentary evidence showing that 
qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a 201 0 interview of him in entitled 
but the author of the article was not identified as required by the olain lanQ:Uage of this 
regulatory criterion. · The petitioner also submitted a · 2006 listing in magazine 
indicating that his book was the third 
best-selling book at 
Bookstore (which the petitioner identifies as a bookstore in , but the English 
language translation accompanYing the material was not a full ·English language translation as 
required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Further, the author of the material was not 
identified as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In 
addition, the submitted material was a listing of numerous books and did not focus on the 
petitioner. As previously discussed, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be 
"about the alien ... relating to the alien's. 
work in the field." Thus, an article that mentions the petitioner but is "about" someone or 
something else cannot qualify under the plain language of this regulation. See Noroozi v. 
Napolitano, 11 CV 8333 PAE, 2012 WL 5510934 at *9; also see generally Negro-Plumpe v. 
0/dn, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *7. Moreover, there is no docl.nnentary evidence showing that 
qualifies as a professional or 
major trade publication or some other form of major 
media. 
The petitioner submitted 
-analysis prepared by 
a July 8, 2006 article about himself in newspaper entitled 
The petitioner also submitted a 
Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication at 
and posted online by the ' 
, media analysis states: 
In 2003, the daily circuJation of was estimated at about 300,000 copies: currentlv it 
stands at between 70,000 and 100,000 copies. The circulation of the other 
newspaper, also dropped drastically and from a circulation of about 15o;ooo 
copies to 60,000 copies. 
Among the other national dailies . with a circulation of about 35,000 copies 
during the week and twice higher during the weekend, 
is worth a mention; others are 
- about 12.000 copies, - about 9,000 copies, - about 15,000 
copies, and - 10,000 copies. The only daily that increased significantly its 
circulation in recent years is whose circulation is currently estimated at over 
100,000 copies. 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
[Emphasis added] . . The petitioner also submitted information about from the publication's 
own website, but as previously discussed, USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See 
Braga v. Poulos, at 680. According to : ; media analysis, _ ·had the lowest 
circulation (9,000 copies) among the national dailies in The petitioner, therefore, has 
· not established that the newspaper qualifies as a form of "major media" in the same mann~r as 
The petitioner submitted a March 9. 2011 article entitled . 
is the best that was posted on the website. of 
newspaper, ·· rne news of (emphasis ~dded). According to the internet 
screenshot . submitted by the petitioner, the March 9, 2011 article on website had 
generated only "1318 views" and "2 comments" as of January 20, 2012. The petitioner also 
submitted information "from the website of publisher of newspaper," 
statine: newspaper is the largest informative-analytical, regional daily in 
with a circulation of 15,000 daily . . . . It is the first private, independent daily in the 
region." Regarding the self-serving information submitted from publisher, as 
previously discussed, USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, at 
680. The petitioner failed to submit any independent, objective evidence establishing that 
is a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a Februarv 15. 2007 profile of him in a 
of his alma mater. The petitioner also submitted information from 
; website statine: IS a stu ent-run newspaper and online publication at 
_ _ Over the years, mission has been to provide 
community, and everyone interested in the university, with the most relevant and current 
information?' In addition. the petitioner submitted a March 8, 2011 article oosted on the internet 
~1tP. of h1~ :~lma mater, [the petitio'ner] 
There is no independent, objective documentary evidence showing that 
and website qualify as professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted a March 8, 2011 article entitled wmnmg 
[the petitioner]" · that was posted at 
an online student "Portal for Education and Science." According to the 
internet screenshot submitted by the petitioner, the March 8, 2011 article posted at 
had 109 positive responses and zero comments as of July 12; 2012. The 
petitioner .also submitted March 8, 2011 articles about himself posted at 
and at an additional unidentifiable internet 
address. The authors of the preceding online articles were not identified as required by the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. Further, there is no documentary evidence showing that the 
preceding websites qualify as major media. 
The petitioner submitted an April 16, 2010 article in newspaper entitled 
[the petitioner]." The petitioner also submitted a May 2006 article in that 
briefly 'mentions the petitioner's novel, but the English language translation accompanying 
the 
. material was not a full English language translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
§ 1 03.2(b )(3). In addition, the author of the May 2006 article was not identified as required by 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Further, the May 2006 article 
does not appear to be about the petitioner. , The AAO notes that the media analysis from 
states that "has a verv restricted circulation." Furthermore, while_ the 
petitioner submitted information from describing itself as a "weekly newspaper for arts, 
. culture and politics," the petitioner failed . to submit evidence (such as objective circulation 
information . from an independent source) showing the distribution of relative to other 
media to demonstrate that the newspaper qualifies as a form of"major" media. 
' 
The petitioner submitted an English language translation of~ online· article that was purportedly 
posted at but the petitioner failed to submit a copy of the original article in 
the language. As previously discussed, going on record without supporting -
documentary evidence is ·not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Further·,· the date and author of the article 
were not identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. In addition, 
there is no documentary evidence showing that qualifies as a form of major 
media. · 
The petitioner submitted a July 2006 article in entitled 
but the author of the material was not identified as required by the plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The petitioner also submitted information about 
the from Wikipedia, but the Wikipedia entry does not 
discuss the publication or its specific distribution. With regard to information 
from Wikipedia, as previously discussed, there are no assurances about the reliability of the 
content from this open, user-edited internet site. See Lamilem Bad.asa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 
F.3d at 909. Moreover. while media analysis 
refers to the magazines . 
there is no objective evidence showing_the distribution of 
relative to other magazines to demonstrate that it qualifies as a form of"major" media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidenc.e 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 
ckissification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted pages 2 and 3 ofthe Fall 1993 issue of a student 
publication of his alma mater. Page 2 identifies the petitioner as one of four members of the 
editorial board for 
The petitioner submitted a January 17, 2012 letter from 
Hollywood, California, stating: 
Our festival was founded in Los Angeles in 2002 with the mission of educating about and 
promoting the cultural diversity of South East Europe through its annual presentations of 
films from this region and year-round screenings and programs. organizes 
(b)(6)
(, 
Page 14 
. international conferences and retrospectives, serves as the cultural hub and resource for 
scholars and filmmakers, and ~reates opportunities for cultural exchange between 
Southern California and 
* * * 
As a result, the _ has invited [the petitioner] to act as a 
reviewer and judge of international film entries, and we have benefitted tremendously 
from his insightful input. · 
* * * 
For the 2011 edition of our festival, [the petitioner] reviewed six recent films, 
and recommended two for inclusion into. our program. The movie that he championed, 
opened the festival and ended up_ receiving the first feature award. This certainly 
confirms [the petitioner's] extraordinary artistic abilities and his keen eye for the best the 
film industry ha.S to offer. He has a unique understanding of what an American aitdience 
would appreciate about _ art, skiilfully bridging the gap between the 
and the American main.stream. · 
The petitioner also submitted documentation of his six film reviews for the 2011 -
This· above evidence satisfies the plain' language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
· § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Accordingly, the AAO affirms the director's finding that the petitioner meets 
this regulatory criterion. · 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-
related contributions ofmajor.significance in the .field. . 
· In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
regulatory criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires 
"[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field." [Emphasis added.] Here, the evidence must be 
reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original scholarly or artistic contributions "of 
major significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3.rd Cir. 
· 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter; 343. F.3d 619, 626 {2"d Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing his work. the petitioner's former 
professor at states: 
Because of [the petitioner's] outstanding talent as a writer and literary critic, I have 
invited him to collaborate with me in the past . . . . · 
(b)(6)
Page 15 
* * * 
Together, [the petitioner] and I have prepared a four-volume study of classical dramatic 
monologues ranging from the Through close readings 
of the many hundreds of texts we used, the volumes, in addition to their function as 
monologues, grew into an insightful history. of evolving cultural patterns in Western 
thought. [The petitioner] contributed not only sophisticated scholarship and critical 
insight into text, but an astonishing range of knowledge of Western literature. The 
volumes are now recognized as unique for their originality and comprehensiveness. 
comments that the four volumes of classic dramatic monologues that he and the 
· petitioner prepared are "recognized as unique for their originality and comprehensiveness." 
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" in the field. While the petitioner's assistance may have 
been useful to fails to provide specific examples of how their work has 
impacted the literary field as a whole or. otherwise equates to original scholarly or artistic 
contributions of major significance in the field. · 
states: 
\.. 
· [The petitioner] became literary collaborator to 
and with went on to publish four volumes of dramatic monologues "From 
. Those books have since become classics in their field, and 
[the petitioner's] input was critical to this accomplishment. It is clear to anyone who 
reads these volumes that the notes and exemplary critical analysis in these texts is the 
result of deep understanding and superb scholarship of both these authors. 
* * * 
[The petitionerl has achieved renown in his native through the publication of his 
two novels . a comic romp through the 
absurdities of 1 His second novel is a modem 
masterpiece of thoughtful reflection on the consequences· of cultural obsolescence. 
won highest Literary Priz.e, the 
Award, 
which is equivalent in importance to the Booker Prize in 
England. [The 
petitioner] has prepared spellbinding English translations of both these works. When 
published in the United States, I believe these two translations will expand on [the 
petitioner's] acclaim and recognition in and will establish him in the United 
States as one of the preeminent novelists of the emergmg "global" perspective in 
international literature. 
asserts that the four volumes of dramatic monologues prepared by with the 
assistance of the petitioner "have since become classics in their field," but fails to 
provide specific, examples of how those volumes have been of major influence in the field. For 
(b)(6)
Page 16 
instance, does not indicate that the volumes have been extensively published~ enjoyed 
by multiple generations of readers, or widely_ praised by independent book critics so as to 
demonstratP. th~t thP. volnmP.~ h~vP. hP.en of "major significance in the field." also 
states that highest Literary Prize, the _ 
Award, which is equivalent in importance to the Booker Prize in England." As previously 
discussed, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney 
General ofthe United States, 745 F. Supp. at 15. There is no documentary evidence. showing 
that the petitioner's award has a level of recognition or distinction equivalent to 
that of the Booker Prize. The AAO cannot conclude that receiving a total of 499 votes through a 
book retailer's online voting system demonstrates that the petitioner's novel is of major 
significance to the field as a whole. ioes not provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner's novel has substantially impacted the literary field or otherwise constitutes an original 
. artistic contribution of major significance in the field. Lastly, expresses his belief that 
"[w]hen published in the United States,''. the two translations of the petitioner's books ''Will 
expand on [the petitioner's] acclaim and recognition in and will establish him .in the 
United States as one of the preeminent novelists of the emerging 'global' perspective in 
international literature." The AAO notes that any impact resulting from the novels 
being published in English and distributed in throughout 
the United States post-dates the May 2, 2012 filing of the petition. Eligibility must be 
established at the time. of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Cortun'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after 
the petitioner becomes eligible under·a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi1 22 I&N Dec. 169, 
175 (Corrim'r 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 
114 (BIA 1981 ), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the 
filing of a petition." ld. at 176. 
states: 
I am well familiar with [the petitioner's] plays, screenp_Iays ·and his two award-winning 
novels, oublished in 2006. and . oublished 
in 
2011 (and wihner of the These two 
novels have garnered an international reputation in the field. What is most striking to me 
about his creative work is that from the very beginning, even back in the late 1990's, [the 
petitioner's] work revealed a keen global perspective, bringing together his experiences 
in his native and his increasing knowledge and appreciation for the 
culture of 
the West. It is this level of creativity and artistic wisdom that separates [the petitioner] 
from the rest and propels him to the top of the field. He is a most talented writer, one 
whose work is original and inventive, probing, and passionate. 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] latest creative accomplishments, the two novels, were both nationally 
recognized with top literary awards .. Both novels include fluid dramatic language and 
(b)(6)
Page 17 
highly charged cinematic stories, which is to say, they could be adapted into movies quite 
easily. 
assert~ that the petitioner's novels 
·'have garnered an international reputation in the field," but she fails to provide specific 
examples regarding how the petitioner's work has had a major influence on the literary field. In the 
field of literature, it is not enough to b~ talented and to have others attest to that talent. An alien 
must have demonstrably impacted the field as_ a whole in order to meet this regulatory criterion. 
also comments that the petitioner's novels "could be adapted into movies quite 
easily," but there is no documentary evidence showing that any motion picture production 
companies have executed such an agreement with the petitioner as of the date of filing the 
petition. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak~ 14 I&N Dec. at 49. ·A petitioner cannot file a petition 
under this classification based solely on the expectation of future eligibility. /d. 
states: · 
I am an award-winning writer and director of television. film and theater. having written 
and directed for hit television shows such as 
I have worked with and evaluated many creative 
professionals, and [the petitioner] is one of the more outstanding. < 
* * * 
Originally, I came across [the petitioner's] work in 1999 and was struck immediately by 
his play It was clear even from that early work that [the petitioner] has an 
important artistic voice, a deep grasp of structure, and an aptitude for research. 
A couple of years later, as part of the writing team on the NBC television show ·I 
brought [the petitioner] to the company, as an associate to the production. I 
have followed his outstanding work over the years. I enthusiastically confirm that I 
would hire hiin to work for me .... 
* * * 
Recently, I had the pleasure of reading [the petitioner]'s novel which has 
received national and international acclaim. It is the work of an extraordinary writer, 
with a firm· grasp of storytelling, character and language. An additional accomplishment 
of the text is the painstaking research of every strata of society. The story 
'moves from ghettos, to high-ranking political offices, to the beaches and mountain 
villages of the .country. [The petitioner] studied the recent history of and used 
it to fictionalize actual persons and ~vents. The authentic details, researched through 
travel and interviews, show [the petitioner's] skill for adapting realitv to the intricacies 
of fiction. I was not surprised to learn that his novel has been voted 
the highest literary prize in 
(b)(6)
( ' 
Page 18 
praises the petitioner for his play and his novel but she fails to 
provide specific examples regarding how these works have significantly impacted the field or 
otherwise equate to original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
also compliments the petitioner on his "aptitude for research" and his "skill for .adapting reality . I 
to the intricacies of fiction." The AAO notes that having a diverse or unique skill set is not an 
artistic contribution of major significance. Rather, the record must be supported by evidence that 
the petitioner has already used his unique skills to-impact the field at a significant level in an 
original way. Furthermore, assuming the petitioner's skills are unique, the classification sought 
was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In fact, that issue properly 
falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien employment labor 
certification process. See Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215~ 221 
(Comm'r 1998). · 
states: 
[Th~ petitioner] is a remarkable talent who has ·made tremendous contributions, which 
has left a permanent mark on our national literature and culture. Therefore, I fully support 
his petition of extraordinary ability and attest that he belongs to the top 1% of 
literary talent. 
* * * 
It takes really extraordinary professionals to work for such giant media institutions as the 
Academy Awards and the television show [The petitioner] obviously impressed the 
producers of such landmark productions which are viewed by billions of viewers all over 
the world. Upon his return to in 2004, he immediately rose to become one of the 
top professionals in this country's mass media .... Several months after his return, [the 
petitioner] was offered the Executive Producer position on the only TV series 
at the time, Later, he became a Creative Producer, the top job, on 
and 
a truly groundbreaking show, which started the current avalanche of 
local productions. 
* * * 
[The petitionerl wrote a novel which has no equivalent in this country's post-commtinist 
literature. _ remains in a category of its own. not iust in 
terms of writing technique, but in terms of its ideas. His second novel voted 
draws from our homegrown tradition of crime writing and reporting, 
and goes beyond the facts, events and numbers in the recent history. . [The 
petitioner] doesn't have any traces of the small country writer's syndrome, provincialism. 
His concerns are global, and he has the ability to match them with his writing. 
(b)(6)
Page 19 
asserts that the petitioner "belongs to the top 1% of literary talent" but l 
does not explain how ,the petitioner's work has been of major significance to the literary 
field.. While states that the getitioner served as an Executive Producer for 
and as a Creative Producer for there is no documentary evidence 
showing that the petitioner's original work for these television programs constitutes artistic 
contributions of major significance in the field. asserts that a 
truly groundbreaking show, ... started the current avalanche of local productions," but 
fails to identify the "local productions" resulting from the petitioner's work or to 
provide specific examples ofhow the petitioner's original innovations were of major significance 
to the television industry. Regarding the petitioner's novels and 
although such works may certainly be considered original; the record contains no 
evidence such as the books' influence on other fiction authors, their impact on society, or an 
unusually large number of copies sold, to demonstrate that his works are considered to be of 
major significance to the literary field. 
t playwright and teacher, states: 
For over five decades my teaching career has included, beside work at 
I, thus, am delighted to confirm that [the 
petitioner 1 is a writer of extraordinary ability who has earned a sustained reputation as 
one. of most important modem novelist [sic]. He is ... a prize-winning author 
and translator and is considered one of the leading international scholars of today. I have 
had occasion; as well, to observe [the petitioner] in his work as a cel~brated researcher 
and translator. · 
asserts that the petitioner is a ''writer of extraordinary ability," but merely repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajj'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Aryr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner. 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). also 
comments that the petitioner is "one of most important modem novelist[ s ]" and "one 
of the leading international scholars of today." As previously discussed~ USCIS need not accept 
primarily 
conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General ofthe United States, 745 F. 
Supp. at 15. While offers general praise for the petitioner, fails to 
specifically identify the petitioner's original contributions and how they have been of niajor 
significance in the literary field. The lack of any specific information offers no evidence of 
original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
states: 
for the past 5 years has been the biggest radio group in 
Apart from producing many radio programmes and music formats, we also or~anize 
some of the top music events throughout the year, among them is the 
this country's equivalent of the Grammy Awards. 
(b)(6)
Page 20 
I have been familiar with [the petitioner's] writings since his early theatrical plays in the 
mid-1990s. They were an instant· success; immediately connecting with his intended 
audience. As a result, [the petitioner] became a nationally known dramaturge, with a 
strong reputation as one of the country's best. The scope of themes and topics that 
interest him led him to a world stage, the largest stage on the planet where he aims to · 
create his art, Hollywood. 
[The petitioner] has worked on multiple highly successful and award-winning 
productions, such as th<: 
* * * 
As soon as he returned to in 2004, I was thrilled to offer him the writing of the 
script for His experience at the made him the 
top talent I needed for our show, which is not only the number one musi.c show in terins 
of viewing audience but also renowned for the daring and innovation .of its production. 
Writing the script of a live ceremony which is also a television show requires a complex 
combination of skills, and [the petitioner] isbetter prepared than anyone else in this 
country. His unique background makes him the number one choice for a show which 
strives to be the best.. As a result, I confirm that fthe oetitionerl olaved a critical and 
leading role on the distinguished production of the and his superb 
effort resulted in an outstanding show. 
comments that the petitioner's "early ' were 
"an instant success," but there is no documentary evidence demonstrating the petitioner's 
substantial influence as a playwright or that his work was otherwise of major significance to the 
field at}arge. also cotrurients on the petitioner's "experience at the ·• 
"complex ·combination of skills," and ''unique backgro\lnd." As previously discussed, it cannot 
suffice to state that the petitioner possesses useful skills, or a ''unique background." Assuming 
the petitioner's skills and experience are unique, the classification sought was not designed 
merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In fact, that issue properly falls under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the labor certification process. See Matter of 
· New York State Dep't. ofTransn. 22 T&N Dec. at 221. While states that the 
petitioner wrote the script for does not 
provide specific examples demonstrating the impact of the petitioner's work at a level indicative of 
original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
-2008. 
states that she worked as Programming Director 
further states: 
from 2005 
In 2007, after introducing reality television on the mark~t with which was a 
tremendous success not only for. the station but for the industry a~ a whole~ the 
management of decided to follow the success by producing a daily 
drama series. 
(b)(6)
' I 
Page 21 
* * * 
management and our partners from unanimously gave [the 
petitioner] the key position of Creative Producer, which was critical to the show's and, 
ultimately, network's, success. 
* * * 
As a result of [the petitioner's] outst~ding strategic choices, the writers on our show, 
went on to become the most successful professional screenwriters in the 
country today. 
Overall, [the petitioner] turned the production into a resounding success. Despite many 
programming reshuffles after got bought by for a record sum, 
stayed as one of a very few programs that continued to perform steady and well 
among its target audience.· He, through his immeasurable talents, established a firm base 
on which the show ran for over two years. · 
While the netitioner's work and stratelric choices as a creative producer may have contributed to 
fails to specifically . identify an· originiil artistic 
contribution made by the petitioner or explain how it has impacted the television industry as a 
whole. The lack of any specific information offers no evidence of original artistic contributions 
of major significance in the field. · 
The preceding references praise the petitioner and his work, but there is insufficient documentary 
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's ·work is of major significance in the field. This 
regulatory criterion not only requires the petitioner to make original contributions, the regulatory 
criterion also requires those contributions to be of "major significance." The AAO is not 
persuaded by vague, solicited letters that simply repeat the statutory _or regulatory language but 
do not explain how the petitioner's contributions have already influenced the field. Vague, 
solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify original contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions i:t;tfluenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. . - -
USCJS, 580 F.3d at 1036 a./f'd in part-596 F.3d at 11-15. In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that 
the AAO's conclusion that "letters from ph)rsics professors attesting to [the alien's] cpntributions in 
the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 
1122. Moreover, the letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of the petitioner's 
status in _the field without providing specific examples of how those contributions rise to a level 
consistent with major significance in the field. 
The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered 
above~ USCIS 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'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately -respqnsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of reference letters supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those 
(b)(6)
s l'\ 
Page 22 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of V­
K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to 
be evidence .as to "fact") .. Thus, the content of the references' 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 that one would expect of a' writer who has made 
original contributions of major significance in the field. Without additional, specific evidence 
showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, substantially impacted his 
field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, the AAO cannot 
conclude that he meets this regulatory 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 his books 
but his novels do not equate . to "scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media." · · 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he served as an · "editor" for · 
book The AAO notes that was the author of the 
book, not the petitioner. Providing oversight of authorship of 
or assisting her with copyediting the text does not constitute evidence of the petitioner's 
"authorship" of a scholarly article in a professional or major trade publication or some other form of 
major media. 
The petitioner submitted pages from a book entitled 
The cover of the book states: "Edited by with the assistance of fthe 
petitioner]." In addition, the copyright page· of the book states: "edited with introductions by 
with the assjstance of.fthe petitionerl.'' The petitioner also submitted a February 17, 2012 
internet screenshot from stating that the book was ''Was written by 
(Editor)," with. "Contributions by'' the petitioner. On appeal, the petitioner submits a new internet 
screenshot from now listing both and the petitioner as "Editor." It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by· independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice· 
unless the petitioner submits competent objeCtive evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The "Publisher Notes" states that the book 
"[c]ontains over 250 monologues that cover over _ " The 
petitioner also submits internet screenshots from two online 
libraries stating that 
._was "edited with an introductions [sic] by 
with the assistance of [the petitioner]." 
With regard to 
letter from states: 
___________ ____. the previously mentioned 
(b)(6)Page 23 
Together, [the petitioner] and I have prepared a four-volume study of classical dramatic 
monologues ranging from the Through close readings 
of the rriany hundreds of texts we usea, me voJumes, m aaamon to their function as 
monologues, grew into an insightful history of evolving cultural patterns in Western 
thought. [The petitioner] contributed not only sophisticated scholarship and critical 
insight into text, but an astonishing range ofknowledge ofWestern literature. 
As previously_discussed, the letter from states: 
[The petitioner] became literary collaborator to Professor 
and with Professor went on to publish four volumes of dramatic monologues " 
Those books have since become classics in their field, and 
[the petitioner's] input was critical to this accomplishment. It is clear to anyone who 
reads these volumes that the notes and exemplary critical analysis in these texts is the 
result of deep understanding and superb scholarship of both these authors. 
There is no documentary evidence to support assertion that the four volumes "have 
since become classics in their field." As previously discussed, USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General ofthe United States, 745 F. Supp. at 
15. Further, going on record witho1;1t supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. al 165. Regardless, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of the 
"alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media." The petitioner has not established that assisting in compiling books of 
dramatic monologues written by authors such as equates to the petitioner's 
"authorship of scholarly articles." In this instance,. the petitioner failed to submit documentary 
evidence of the specific "scholarly articles" in the four volumes that he authored. Once again, going 
on record without·supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. !d. A petition must be filed with any initial evidence 
required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. . -
§ 1 03.2(b )(2)(i) provides that the non-existence or unavailability of required evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. Moreover, even if the petitioner were to submit evidence of the 
scholarly articles that he authored in the four volumes, which he has not, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that four books. equate to professional or major trade publications or 
other major me4ia. 
The petitioner submitted a ·"short story" entitled that was published in 
. but the petitioner has not established that his short 
story equates to a "scholarly 
article.". Further, there is no evidence showing that qualifies as a professional or 
major trade publication or some other form of major media.· 
The netitioner submitted a "marketing article" ir entitled ' _ 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires 
evidence of the "alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media." [Emphasis added.] The title of the article indicates that it 
(b)(6)' . ' 
Page 24 
pertains to marketing and business rather than the petitioner's field of the literary arts. See Lee v. 
I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 91,4 (N.D. Til: 2002) (upholding a finding that competitive athletics and 
coaching are not within the same area of expertise). Further, the petitioner failed to submit a 
certified English language translation of the article as .required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). . 
The petitioner submitted an essay· entitled that was published in but he 
failed to submit a certified English language translation of the essay as required by the regulation 
at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). FUrther, there is no documentary evidence showing that 
qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted poems and short stories that he authored in and articles that 
he wrote for newspaper, but he failed to submit certified English language translations of 
his published literary works as required by the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(3). Further, the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field." [Emphasis added.] Generally, scholarly articles are 
written by and for experts in a particular field of study, are peer-reviewed, and contain references 
to sources used in the articles. In this instance, the record lacks evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner's literary works were peer-reviewed, contain any references to sources, or were 
otherwise considered "scholarly." Moreover, there is no documentary 
evidence showing that 
qualify as professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. 
The petitioner submitted three articles entitled anrl 
that he wrote for an issue of the . The 
articles, which are about events at and its students' activities, do not equate to "scholarly 
articles." Further, there is no evidence showing that qualifies as a professional 
or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has established that he meets the plain language requirements 
of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner did not initially claim eligibility for this regulatory criterion. In response to the 
director's request for evidence and again on appeal, counsel· asserts that the petitioner's work as 
writer for television shows meets. this criterion. The director concluded that writing a 
script for a film or television show did not constitute.display of the petitioner's work in the field at 
artistic exhibitions or showcases. Neither counsel nor the petitioner has explained how his specific 
productions were displayed "at artistic exhibitions or showcases." The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 ·c .F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires -"[e]vidence of the disphiy of the alien's work in 
the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases.'' The petitioner is a writer. When he writes a script 
for a film, a television show, or a play, he is not displaying his work in the same sense that a 
painter or sculptor displays his work in a gallery or museum. The petitioner is writing a script 
(b)(6)
'· c' 
Page 25 
that others will perform; he. is not "displaying" his work. The interpretation that 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is longstanding and has been upheld by a federal 
district court. Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) 
(upholding an interpretation that performances by a performing artist do not fall under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). As the petitioner is not a visual artist and has not created tangible pieces of 
art that were on display· at exhibitions or showcases, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying 
evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). -, · 
On appeal, counsel states: 
Whether the AAO concludes that this regulatory criterion is, indeed, applicable to the 
petitioner's occupation, or if the criterion does not readily apply for his occupation, this 
evidence can be regarded as comparable evidence, we respectfully request that [the 
petitioner's] successful career as a screenwriter whose written scripts have been produced 
... be considered admissible evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" 
only if the ten categories of evidence "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." 
Thus, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate why the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) are not readily applicable to the alien's occupation and how the evidence submitted is 
"comparable" to the specific objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). The 
regulatory language precludes the consideration qf 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. § 204.5(h)(3). In fact, as 
indicated in tl;l.is decision, the petitioner submitted evidence that specifically addresses eight of 
the categories of evidence set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is 
simply unable to satisfy the plain language requirements of at least three categories of evidence 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the 
submission of comparable evidence. 
·Regardless, even if the AAO were to consider the petitioner's "career as a screenwriter" as 
comparable evidence forth~ regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), the AAO is not persuaded that 
simply writing material for television shows or films is sufficiently comparable to having one's 
work displayed "at artistic exhibitions or showcases." For instance, while a screenwriter or 
producer whose film is shown at filin festival showcases (such as the Sundance Film Festival and 
the Cannes Film Festival) may constitute evidence comparable to "artistic exhibitions or 
showcases" for this regulatory· criterion, simply writing a screenplay without having it showcased in 
some formal mariner does not qualify as comparable evidence for this regulatory criterion. To the 
extent that the petitioner is a writer for television or film productions, it is inherent to his 
occupation to write scripts for television shows or screenplays for motion picture films that are 
shown to the public. Not every such production is an artistic exhibition designed to showcase 
the writer's work. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
. ' ' 
Page 26 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have ·a distinguished reputation .. · 
The petitioner submitted a letter from stating: 
management and our partners from 1,manimously gave [the 
petitioner] the key position of Creative Producer, which was critical to the show's and, 
ultimately, network's, success. 
* * * 
is among the world leaders in the p~oduction of daily. dramas. The fact 
that this renowned company that has its pick of the world's leading entertainment 
professionals chose [the petitioner] as our project's Creative DireCtor fully confirms his 
position as one of the leading talents in the field. In fact, manual, which we . 
adopted for the production, states in regards to the Creative Producer: "The Big Job. The 
producer is the caring, visionary, creative head of the series. He/She ... is the guardian of. 
the vision for the show. He/She is the only person on the whole team with a clear vision 
of what the show is about in the broadest terms. He is aware of future stories. He casts 
the main roles. He decides on the look of the show. It is his/her difficult task to manage 
the gentle balarice between the creative and the logistics." Clearly, this confirms that the 
position· of the Creative Director is a. critical and leading role, and playing such a role for 
a distinguished organization, underscores [the petitioner's] renown and 
acclaim. 
* * * 
Overall, [the pe~itioner] turned the nroduction into a resounding success. Desnite manv 
proJ:O"arnming reshuffles after got bought by for ·a record sum, 
stayed as one of a very few prognims that continued to perform steady and well 
among its target audience. 
The petitioner submitted documentary evidence demonstrating that Television and 
Media had distinguished reputations during his employment. Although the petitioner 
may have performed in a leading or critical role as Creative Producer/Director for the 
television show~ the petitioner has not established that he performed in a leading or critical 
role for the production company or the . Television network. In general, a 
leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which the alien is 
responsible for the success or standing of the organization. The petitioner failed to submit 
organizational ·charts or similar documentary evidence to demonstrate where his Creative 
Producer/Director position fit within the overall hierarchy of Television. 
The letter from l fails to explain how the petitioner's role was leading relative to that of 
Television or: other television' series producers and directors, let alone the 
top officers or executives who ran the companies. . Further, the submitted evidence does not 
(b)(6)
'. 
Page 27 
es4tblish that the petitioner was responsible for the preceding companies' success or standing to a 
degree consistent with the meaning of "critical role." While the petitioner may have performed 
admirably on the television show project, there is ilo evidence showing that his 
role as Creative Producer/Director was leading or critical to the preceding companies as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from stating: 
As CEO of I manage the company's operations in that 
include seven of the leading radio stations in as well as the number one music 
TV channel in the countrv. is owned by one of the leading 
that owns the leading radio stations 
in _ _ Apart from 
producing many radio programmes and music formats, we-also organize some of the top 
music events throughout the year, among them is the 
this country's equivalent of the Grammy Awards. 
* * . * 
I was thrilled to offer [the petitioner] the writing of the script for 
His experience at the made him the top talent I needed for our 
show, which is not only the number one music show in terms of viewing audience but 
also renowned for the daring and innovation of its production ... · . As a result, I confirm 
that [the petitioner] played a critical and leading role on the distinguished production of 
the and his superb effort resulted in an outstanding show. 
The petitioner submitted general information about from its 
website, but there is no documentary evidence showing that _ 
have a distinguished reputation Reu~rilinu the ~elf-~erving information in. 
letter and submitted from parent company's website, 
USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, at 680. Further, while the 
petitioner may have written the script for the petitioner 
failed to submit documentary evidence showing that he performed·in a leading or critical role for 
as a whole. Moreover, the AAO notes that a one-time 
event such as the production does not constitute an 
"organization" or an "establishment." 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted a letter from stating: 
Together, [the petitioner] and I have prepared a four-volume study of classical dramatic 
monologues ranging from the Through close readings 
of the many hundreds of texts we used, the volumes, in addition to their function. as 
monologues, grew into an insightful history of evolving cultural patterns in Western 
thought. [The petitioner] contributed not only sophisticated scholarship and critical 
insight into text~ but an astonishing range of knowledge of Western literature. The 
volumes are now recognized as unique for their originality and comprehensiveness. 
(b)(6)
' 1 • • 
Page 28 
The petitioner also submitted a-lett~r from stating: 
Those books have since become classics in their field, and [the petitioner's] input was 
critical to this accomplishment. It is clear to anyone who reads these volumes that the 
notes and exemplary critical analysis in these texts is the result of deep understanding and 
superb scholarship ofboth these authors. 
The AAO cannot conclude that providing assistance to in compiling books of dramatic· 
monologues equates to the petitioner having "performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that 'have a distinguished reputation." [Emphasis added.] On 
appeal, counsel states: "Counsel concedes that a study of monologues is not an organization or 
establishment." · 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory criterion .. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner submitted November 2011, December 2011, and January 2012 earnings 
statements from statjng that he receives a "Basic Salary" of 2,600 leva monthly, 
or 31,200 leva yearly. In addition to his "Basic Salary," the petitioner's earning statements 
reflected "Additional pay due to Experience" .amounting to 10.8 - 11.4 nercent added to his 
monthly salary. ·The petitioner also submitted a certificate from 
stating that he received gross income of22,37L78leva in 2007 and 29,518.47 leva in 2008. In 
addition, the petitioner submitted 2010 and 2011 "AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGES. AND 
SALARIES" information from the for all those' working 
in the broad fields of "Arts, entertainment and recreation." The petitioner must submit evidence 
showing that he has eained a "high salary" or other "significantly high remuneration" in relation to 
others in his specific field, not simply a salary that is above "average" for those working in the 
"Arts, entertainment and recreation" occupational cluster. Average salary information for those 
performing work in a grouping of occupations with different responsibilities is not a proper basis 
for comparison. Instead, the petitioner must submit documentary evidence showing the earnings 
of those in his occupation performing similar work at the top level of the field. See Matter of 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional golfer's e~ngs 
versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. US. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 
712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011).(findirig average salary information for those performing lesser­
duties is not a comparison to others in the field); Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. 
Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. 
Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other 
NHL defensemen). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
(b)(6)
\ '. i 
Page 29 
Summary 
The petitioner has failed to demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or 
to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement ·of three' categories of evidence. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits. Determination 
The AAO will next conduct a finai merits determination. that considers all of the evidence in the 
context of whether or nqt the petitioner has demonstrated: ( 1) a "level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who l}.ave risen to the very top of the[ir] 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." Section 
203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In the 
present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have 
already been addressed in the AAO's prec.eding discussion of the categories of evidence at 
8 C.P.R.·§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), ·and (v)- (ix). 
With regard to the evidence submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(i), the 
petitioner submitted online results indicating that his book received a total of 499 
votes in . the category and won the As 
previously discussed, the petitioner failed to submit priml'lrv P.v1clP.n~P. nf his award. Further, the 
AAO is not persuaded that receiving 499 votes on the website den10nstrates 
national or international recognition for· excellence in the literary field. The petitioner has not 
established that the single award submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(i) 
· is indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim, or a level of expertise indicating 
that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top ofhis field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(iii), all 
of the material submitted ·by the petitioner was deficient in at least one of the regulatory 
requirements such as not including an author, not being about the petitioner, and not appearing in 
a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. The petitioner has 
not established that the material submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204:5(h)(iii) 
is indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating 
that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top ofhis field. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for-the category of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(iv), 
the nature of the petitioner's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the 
submitted evidence is indicative of his recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See 
Kazarian, 596'F. 3d at 1122. The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he served as one of 
four members of the editorial board for in the Fall 1993 issue of 
, a student publication of his alma~mater. The AAO cannot conclude that editing the work 
of fellow students during his undergraduate studies at is indicative of the petitioner's 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the literary field. Internal review of 
(b)(6)
' ' ' ' 
Page 30 
. J . \ . 
student work is not indicative of or consistent with national orinterhational acclaim:. Cf Kazarian, 
580 F.3d at 1035. Further, evaluating other undergraduate students, who have not yet begun 
working professionally in the field, is not commensurate with being among that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top the field. · 
The documentation submitted by the petitioner for the category of evidence at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(iv) also included the letter from stating that the petitioner reviewed six 
_ films for the _ .. On appeal, the petitioner submits 
information about _ from its website. Regarding the self-serving 
information in letter and submitted from the website, 
USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, at 680. The petitioner also 
submits a May 15, 2012 interview of published in an online publication 
of the , The article states that I recently "curated 
which included films that ''played at different times in 
' The nreceding article focuses on and fails to demonstrate that 
_ has earned n<>tional notoriety, has distinguished itself from the 
numerous other film festivals held throughout the United States, or that the films screened at the 
festival are produced and directed by established professional filmmakers. Further, the May 15, 
2012 article post-dates the filing of the petition. As previously discussed, eligibility must be 
established at the time offiling. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
at 49. There is no evidence showing that the petitioner's participation in the 
is indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner failed to 
submit evidence demonstrating that he has judged top fil~akers at the national or international 
level·rather than amateur or student filmmakers in the early stages of their career. Cf, Matter of 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954; 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899 (USCIS has long held that even athletes 
performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
immigrant classification as an alien of "extraordinary ability''). · Moreover, the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner indicates that he has reviewed films for only one film festival in 
2011. The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that his level and 
frequency of judging is commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the · 
very top of the field. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R.. 
§§ 204.5(h)(v) and (vi), the petitioner has documented his authorship of two novels; his assistance 
to in compiling books of dramatic monologues; and his authorship of an essay, short 
stories, poems, a marketing article, articles in articles in . a script for 
. and television program scripts. The petitioner, however, has not 
established that his· publication record and original contributions are indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Demonstrating that the petitioner's 
work was "original" without demonstrating. the ''major significance" of his scholarly and artistic 
contributions is not useful in setting the petitioner apart through a "career of acclaimed work." H.R. 
Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). ·That page (59) also says that "an alien must (1) demonstrate 
sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics (as 
shown through extensive documentation) .... " Literary work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to 
·secure the petitioner employment in his field or to result in publication of his work, let alone to · 
(b)(6)
.. . . . 
Page 31 
qualify~ for classification as a writer of extraordinary ability. To argue that all of the petitioner's 
original literary work is, by definition, "extraordinary'' is to weaken that adjective beyond any 
useful meaning, and to preswne that most such work is ''unoriginal." In this case, the reeord does 
not contain sufficient evidence that the petitioner's original work had major significance in the 
field, let alone an impact ·consistent with being nationally . or internationally acclaimed as 
extraordinary. 
Regarding the docwnentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(Yii), 
as previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that he has displayed his work in the 
field "at artistic exhibitions or showcases." The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not 
establish that his work as a screenwriter, television writer, or playwright is commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim at.the very top of the field. 
With regard to _the docwnentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), as previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that he has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
repUtatiOn. The evidenl'P cm}\1'nittPil h" thP nptltinnpr ilnPtO: nnt PtO:tl'lhlitO:h thl'lt hitO: pOSitiOnS Were 
leading or critical to or otherwise 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
In regard to the docwnentation submitted for the . category of evidence at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the petitioner has not established that·h~ has earned a high salary in relation to 
others in the field. The petitioner has not demonstrated that his salary places him among that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See Matter of Price, 20 
I&N Dec. at 954; see also Skokos v. US. Dept. ofHomeland Sec., 420 F. App'x at 713-14; 
Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. at 968; Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. at 444-45. The salary evidence 
submitted by the petitioner is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim, or a 
level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who have ri~en to the very top 
of the field. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The AAO notes that 
; letter specifically points to individuals in the field whose achievements far exceed 
those·ofthe petitioner. For instance, states: 
Throughout his career, [the petitioner] has had the honor of working alongside World­
renowned talents such . as writer/director/producer· and five-time Oscar winner 
; the Emmy-winning and Oscar-nominated director and producer of the 
Oscars award shows who has produced 
more Oscars than anyone in history (14 
times between 1990 and 2008) and served as president of the 
·and a:lso the internationally renowned writer/director/producer creator of 
and former president of the Writers Guild of 
America. Clearly, working together with such widely recognized celebrities and leading 
authorities in the field confirms [the petitioner's] sustained level of international acclaim. 
(b)(6)
Page 32 
Mr. letter fails. to specify the nature of the petitioner's work for 
There is no indication that the petitioner held equivalent 
responsibilities rather than working as their subordinate and performing lesser duties. 
Reputationby association with various projects 
(which involve numerous contributors at varying degrees of responsibility) does not 
automatically establish that the petitioner himself enjoys sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of the field. 
In addition, the AAO notes that many of the petitioner's references' credentials are far more . ' ' 
impressive than those of the petitioner. · 
For example, Dr. )tates: 
I am a retired 
and also at the 
In theatre, I've written some forty plays produced in 
the U.S., Italy, Germany, Israel and· in venues in many other countries, and have done 
and also 
in Pittsburgh, where the reviews were broadcast over several hundred stations in the U.S. 
As _a result, I am honored to have earned a reputation as one of the leading authorities in 
the field of dramaturgy and theatre. 
Dr. states: 
I graduated from the with a Master of Fine Arts Degree in 
Playwriting. My plays have been produced across the country in Connecticut, New York, 
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Texas, California, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona, and 
Washington State~ My most produced play has received almost 40 productions since 
1989. I have been published as a playwright, and reviewed novels for the 
for ten years (my novel reviews have been syndicated in the 
I have also served on a number of panels for the 
in Washington, D.C. · I also write for television, and had a teleplay air on 
on PBS; I was also a lead writer on a PBS mini-series. I was 
hired by in 1986 and have been the playwriting 
program since 1989. As _ _ and 
(have been instrumental in admitting and teaching 23 years of playwriting 
students. 
' . 
states: 
I am an award-winning writer and director of television, film and theater, having written 
· and directed ·for hit television shows such as 
_ I ·have also written the screenplays for 
based c,m my play; . inspired by a 
(b)(6)
..... " ~ 
Page 33 
psychiatric textbook; and ' adapted from best-selling 
novel. I am also an accomplished playwright and theater director. -
'states: 
I am a Professor at - -
- It· has been my privilege to be 
Editor-in-Chief of. I am the author of several books on political, civil and 
media tendencies in our societv_ Tn terms of civil service, I have t~e honor of serving as 
the parliamentary body which 
oversees and regulates the electronic media, this country's equivalent of the U.S.'s 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than himself to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is far above 
the level he has attained. In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the 
time of filing the petition were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a 
writer, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The 
submitted evidence is not indicative of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated 
by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59. 
. \ 
lll. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national· or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record,·however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to 
such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim 
and to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive 
that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a 
· national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) ofthe 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 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal.' 2001), a.ff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v~ DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 
(3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
In visa petition proceedings, the ·burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains 
entirely with the petitioner. Section291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not 
been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. .