sustained
EB-1A
sustained EB-1A Case: Sports Broadcasting
Decision Summary
The director initially determined the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability. The AAO sustained the appeal, finding that upon de novo review and application of the two-part analysis from Kazarian v. USCIS, the petitioner's evidence was sufficient to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria, thereby establishing eligibility for the classification.
Criteria Discussed
Published Material About The Alien In Professional Or Major Trade Publications Or Other Major Media Lesser Nationally Or Internationally Recognized Prizes Or Awards Membership In Associations Requiring Outstanding Achievements Judging The Work Of Others Original Contributions Of Major Significance Authorship Of Scholarly Articles Display Of Work At Artistic Exhibitions Or Showcases Leading Or Critical Role For Distinguished Organizations High Salary Or Other High Remuneration Commercial Successes In The Performing Arts
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
identifying data deleted to prevent clearly unw~nted invasion of personal pnvacy PUBLIC COpy FILE: INRE: Petitioner: Beneficiary: U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Washington. DC 20529-2090 U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 16 2011 PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: INSTRUCTIONS: Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. Thank you, ~rryRhew Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov Page 2 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 sustained. The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability as a sports broadcaster. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained national or international acclaim. Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific 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. On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below, we find that the petitioner meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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 ofthe following subparagraphs (A) through (C): (A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if-- (i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, (ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and (iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. Page 3 u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 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. Id. and 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) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; (ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; (iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation; (iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge 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 In the field, In professional or major trade publications or other major media; (vii) Evidence of the display ofthe 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 Page 4 (x) Evidence of commercial successes in the perfonning arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 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.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits detennination" as the corollary to this procedure: If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS detennines whether the evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the [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. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1 )(A)(i). Id. at 1119-1120. 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 reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vi). Page 5 II. Analysis A. Evidentiary Criteria This petition, filed on March 23, 2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a sports broadcaster. We find that the petitioner's evidence meets at least three of the following categories of evidence under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. The petitioner submitted numerous articles about him in professional, major trade or other major media pUblications such as The Observer. Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. The petitioner submitted evidence showing publication profiling the final 32 teams in The petitioner also submitted documentation indicating that he was appointed to serve on the judging panel for •••••••••••• Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he was the commentator and host in the live broadcasting of three and commentator of while working as a broadcast journalist The documentation .u .... v .... ,u .... that he in" and is Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. In this case, the petitioner meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Page 6 B. Final Merits Determination In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we will next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 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." See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-1120. In this case, the petitioner has submitted extensive documentation of his achievements in sports journalism. The submitted evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's sustained national acclaim as a sports reporter and commentator and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. The petitioner has submitted documentation showing that he has been the frequent subject of cover stories in magazines with national circulation. The petitioner has also judged the work of others in his field and served in a . or critical role for distinguished media organizations. For instance, during his time at was the commentator for major international soccer events, including three and three Olympic Games. Beyond the preceding achievements, the petitioner submitted documentation showing that he has authored three published books and that his sports commentary blog at _has received over 60 million visits since its inception making him one of China's most popular soccer commentators. Thus, the evidence submitted by the petitioner demonstrates that his achievements are commensurate with sustained national acclaim at the very top of his field. III. Conclusion In review, while not all of the petitioner's evidence carries the weight imputed to it by counsel, the petitioner has submitted evidence qualifying under at least three of the ten categories of evidence and established a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and "sustained national or international acclaim." His achievements have been recognized in his field of expertise. The petitioner has established that he seeks to continue working in the same field in the United States. The petitioner has established that his entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has established eligibility for the benefit sought under section 203 of the Act. The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has sustained that burden. ORDER: The decision of the director is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.
Use this winning precedent in your petition
MeritDraft analyzes sustained AAO decisions like this one to generate petition arguments that mirror what actually gets approved.
Build Your Winning Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.