dismissed O-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 14515162 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 19, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a business engaged in television productions and publishing, seeks to classify the 
Beneficiary as a foreign national of extraordinary ability in business. To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 
nonimmigrant classification, available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary 
ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center initially denied the petition and subsequently affirmed 
her decision on motion, concluding that the Petitioner, did not satisfy, as required, the alternative 
evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability in business, either a major, 
internationally recognized award or at least three of eight possible forms of documentation pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics that has been demonstrated 
by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define "extraordinary 
ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics" as "a level of expertise indicating that the 
person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either of 
"a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of eight listed 
categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994)("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met."). Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 10l(a)(l5)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Beneficiary indicates current emplorment as an executive editor and journalist for the I I 
I U I, l andl I Because the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, it must 
satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). In 
denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the initial 
evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief claiming to meet seven criteria. After 
reviewing all the evidence, we conclude that the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii)(B)( 1). 
The Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on the Beneficiary's receipt of a ~ 
~ ~Award for Best Screenwriter 2017" from the I IFilm Festival 
......... _-_-_-_ -_ -._..Inorder to fulfill this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that the bene{iciary received 
the prizes or awards, and they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field 
of endeavor. Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards 
was excellence in the field include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, 
the national or international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of 
awardee( or priT recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. The Petitioner did not establish 
that the I I Award for Best Screenwriter" is nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence in the field. Although the Petitioner submitted documentation regarding the 
I I Project and I I it does not reflect the national or international significance of the 
Beneficiary's prize. Within its response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
provided a letter from I I executive producer of I I who provides that the ~ 
I I Award for Best Screenwrit~r" was established in 2013 "to honor a single individual for 
I I contribution to enriching culture through motion pictures and television," and 
recognized the Beneficiary's "contribution to the art of screenwriting." We note thatl ts letter 
does not identify the Beneficiary's prior achievements as a screenwriter for film or television. 
1 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, ·'truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 
On motion the Petitioner rovided an article dated 2014 and entitled 
.__ _________________________ ----,. ____ ...,__=fr'-"'-.om the website 
www.sandiegored.com. The article rrovides a link to enter the 2014 -ompetition and 
describes it as anl film competition run b ~--~that is "open to any up-and­
coming filmmaker with access to the internet." The article indicates that the competition "challenges 
oarticioants to create a short film in just two days" with the top 15 films also winning I I 
'=======:::;---__,I The Petitioner's motion also included a press release dated 2017 from the 
_________ published on the website www.electrowow.net, announcing the winners of the 2016 
'-------~ competition, providing information about the competition, and providing the names 
and occupations of"some of the industry's top decision makers for its 2016 Jury." An additional press 
release from the website www.zeitblatt.com indicates that the 20181 t took place at thel I I I The above promotional materials from I ldo not mention or 
demonstrate the national or international recognition of excellence in the field that is associated with 
the Beneficiary's receipt of the 20171 I Award for Best Screenwriter." In 
addition, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's award received any media coverage at the 
time she received it. 
The Petitioner's motion further included an article from www.latimes.com entitled .... ! ______ ___, 
The arti~ch is 
about some of~--~ s career accomplishments, mentions that in 2016 her short filml__J"was 
nominated in seven categories at thel I an.__ ________ __, film festival" and 
that the film "took home awards for best short, best director and best cinematoepmbv " Tt 9ontains a 
picture ofi I at the 2018 I Although the article confirms that~L ___ ~J is a past 
winner o:tf .... __ ___.bwards, the Petitioner did not show how other individuals receiving such prize is 
in-and-of-itself evidence of national or international recognition for excellence. In addition, the article 
does not indicate the prestigious nature of the I I awards. Here, the Petitioner provided 
insufficient evidence to identify the '.__ _________ __,Award for Best Screenwriter" as a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize for excellence in the field consistent with this regulatory 
criterion. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about 
the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which class[fication is sought, 
which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any 
necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner submitted articles pertaining to the Beneficiary from the print editions of the magazines 
You Weekly Magazine, Passarella, OK,2 an~ I. We note that 
although the Petitioner provided translations, the translator indicates that they translated only an 
2 It does not appear that the original untranslated article from OK is located a~1-________ _.l 2006 edition 
of the publication, as indicated by the translation. 
3 
"excerpt" of those articles. 3 Because the articles were not folly translated, we cannot determine that 
the articles are about the Beneficiary. In addition, regarding the article from Passarella we note that 
the author of the article is not identified, and the article is not accompanied by the required 
certification from the translator. 4 
The Petitioner also provided articles published on the websites www.the-bolar.blogspot.com, 
.__ ______ __. and.__ ________ ___, The articles, however, do not reflect published 
material about the Beneficiary relating to her work. Rather, the article from www.the-
bolar.blogspot.com discusses the Eurovision song contest, the article from I I the 
Beneficiary's employer, is about her soon-to-be-released I . 0 I I land the article from.__ _______ ----,! provides that the Beneficiary spoke at an 
event .at the Synthesis Cultural Foundation in Boston. Arti°cles that are not about an alien do not fulfill 
this regulatory criterion. Cf Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 
8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). In addition, we 
note that the article froml ldoes not identify the author. 
Further, the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence indicating that the print or digital editions 
of the aforementioned publications qualify as major media. Moreover, although the Petitioner 
submitted information from the website www.eurotopics.net indicating that the newspaper 
I 
I has a weekly circulation of 50,000, and documentation from the websites 
~-------~landl ~roviding sales statistics for You Weekly Magazine for a 
one-week period in May 2013 and May 2018, respectively, there is no evidence showing the 
distribution oft _ I relative to othe~ I media or of You Weekly Magazine relative to other 
,__ _ ___,~edia, to demonstrate those publications constitute major media. 
Moreover, the Petitioner submitted a screenshot of a video posted on the website.__ _____ __. 
from '1 I" The Petitioner claimed that the video reflected an interview of the 
Beneficiary broadcasted onl I inl lod 12016. However, the Petitioner did 
not provide a transcription of the video demonstrating published material about the Beneficiary 
relating to her work. The Petitioner provided a translation of "Minute: 01:00 (Introduction)" and 
"Minute: 15:40" of the video, indicating that the Beneficiary was interviewed concerning her opinion 
about variou~ I television personalities and their work. The Petitioner also did not establish that 
I C: f represents a major medium. Further, the Petitioner provided articles from several 
websites that it claims are about the Beneficiary's aforementioned appearance onl I' 
However, all the articles were in the Olanguage. Finally, the Petitioner did not include supporting 
evidence demonstrating that any of these articles appeared in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media, and instead relied on unsupported assertions regarding the stature of these 
3 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. 
4 The Petitioner also provided evidence that an a1iicle about the Beneficiary would appear itj lin June 2019. 
However, the Petitioner filed this petition in February 2019. As noted by the Director, the Petitioner must establish that 
all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing 
through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b )(I); therefore, the Petitioner cannot establish the Beneficiary's eligibility under 
this criterion based on an article published in June 2019, even ifwe were to determine that it otherwise satisfies all elements 
of this evidentiary criterion. 
4 
websites com ared to other ublications inl I contained in a document entitled .... I ____ ____, .-----------L--------'--------"====-----------, 
L-----r----i-------------,--------L.....::F....::o:.::r....:e~x.:,:a:::.::m~ple, the document 
indicates for.__ __ ...,......that the "[w]ebsite's rank i·---~-------~___.' The record also 
lacks the original untranslated document corresponding to this material. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work 
of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). 
This regulatory criterion requires the Petitioner to show that the Beneficiary has acted as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization. The Director determined that the 
record shows that the Beneficiary was a judge at thel I Festival. 5 For the reasons outlined 
below, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence 
demonstrating that the Beneficiar meets this criterion. 6 In support of this criterion, the Petitioner 
submitted a reference letter fro who confirmed the Beneficiary's "involvement in the 
judging committee on this Festival." His letter indicates that participants 
in thel !compete "for thel I and thel !Awards," that "we 
decided to invite [the Beneficiary] to join our organization as one of our acclaimed judges," and that 
"[the Beneficiary] has become a valuable member of our judging committee, adding her unique 
knowledge, perspectives, and reputation on our decision making." I Is letter lacks specificity 
regarding the events at which the Beneficiary judged and, therefore, the letter alone is insufficient to 
establish that the Beneficiary served as a judge of thd I orl l Awards. 
The Petitioner also provided screenshots from the website.__ ________ _.that identify the 
Beneficiary, a "TV personality in th~I I broadcast industry," as among the "Judges of 2017." The 
screenshots also advise contestants that "[t]he appraisal you receive will be honest and worthwhile," 
indicating that the 20171 !competitions had not yet taken place. In order to meet this 
criterion, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary has not only been invited to judge the work of 
others, but also that she actually participated in the judging of the work of others in the same or allied 
field of specialization. Here, the Petitioner did not present corroborating documentation showing that 
the Beneficiary actually participated in judging filmmakers 1 I submissions and the events at 
which the Beneficiary judged, to show that she actually participated as a judge for the 2017 D 
I lorl I A wards. 
5 The Director ultimately determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion because it did not demonstrate the 
"significance" of the Beneficiary's judging experience. However, this consideration does not relate to whether the 
Petitioner has met the plain language of this criterion. Tfthe Beneficiary had satisfied at least three criteria, which she did 
not, then we would have analyzed her judging experience as part of the totality of the evidence to detennine if her successes 
are sufficient to establish that she has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. Although we need not conduct such 
an analysis in this case, we briefly note that we do not find the record (including the evidence under this criterion) to be 
indicative of the sustained acclaim and recognition for achievements required for this highly restrictive classification. 
" The Pctitioncr pcwiousl, claimed that t; Bcnclicia: also meets this criterion. based on her participation as the chair at 
a symposium sponsored b~ ~ in 2011. On appeal, the Petitioner claims eligibility based on 
the Beneficiary's claimed judging for th ____ ~_. awards mentioned above and does not address this claimed 
judging. 
5 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary satisfies this 
criterion . 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only has the beneficiary made 
original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, a 
petitioner may support the record with evidence that a beneficiary's contributions have been widely 
implemented, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of 
major significance in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that it has provided letters from 
"true experts in the field that include famous writers, well-known journalists, a University professor, 
big media editors, and [a] TV host and producer'~ave their insight and in-depth explanation on 
what are the contributions of [the Beneficiary] tcL__Jjournalism and culture." 7 Here, although the 
letters reflect praise regarding the Beneficiary's journalistic abilities, they do not show how the 
Beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
For example, the letters do not indicate that the Beneficiary has significantly influenced or impacted 
the field of journalism . I I forme~ I of DownTown magazine, 
provides that the Beneficiary was "the most powerful factor in the publication of this magazine 
because she already had a considerable following of concrete and loyal readers." He describes her as 
the "best pen of her generation" and "my first choice" to launch television and theatrical projects 
because her interviews "create the publicity required for success ." 
.__ _______ __.la.journalist with the newspape~ lindicates that the Beneficiary 
wrote articles for the publication's cultural insert Feel Good, which were published on the "leading" 
website! land received "a very high readership." He describes the Beneficiary as the "top 
journalist in I I and praises her "unique manipulation of thel hanguage, as well as for the 
way she approached the interviewees." 
.__ ____ __,,l I I of the digital business publication! I indicates that the 
Beneficiary has conducted "exceptional" interviews of European artists and business magnates for the 
publication, and that her articles "have significantly increased the number of visitors to our website." 
I 
1,1 l andl I discussed the Beneficiary's contributions to 
U I andl ~' rather than explaining how the Beneficiary has made original 
contributions of major significance in the greater field. For instance, although! I asserts 
that the Beneficiary "has changed the writing lalguage of modem journalism" with her "unique style 
of writing and extraordinary use of the language," he did not elaborate and show how the 
Beneficiary's contributions have been implemented in the overall field or how they have somehow 
resulted in a substantial effect in the field. 
The Petition""'e.:....r.....aa=l=so"---'=r=o..:.v=id=e=d letters from several of those who have been interviewed by the 
Beneficiary. TV host and producer, provides that the Beneficiary introduced new 
publications on th show in a "fresh, unique, and humorous" manner, and that the 
7 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
's review of her bookl lwas "paramount to its success ." .... I __ _. .----- ......... a rofessor of history and Italian literature, claims that the Beneficiary's review of his 
boo show attracted the attention of a large academic audience generating 
significant sales. Again _.__ ____ __,andl l discussed the Beneficiary's contributions 
to the promotion of their books, rather than explaining how the Beneficiary has made original 
contributions of major significance in the greater field. In additionJ I anl I 
novelist raises as "exce tional" the Beneficiar 's broadcast and written critiques of his works 
. He indicates that the Beneficia!;Y's journalism 
._a_n_d_t_e-le_v_i-si_o_n_w_o_rk-h-as-ap_p_e_a_r_e_d_o_n_c_a_b_le~,... _-_-_ -_:p_ro_g__.rams i~ I' I J does not point 
to any specific news stories, written or broadcast by the Beneficiary, or explain how they were of 
major significance in the field of journalism . 
There is no presumption that every published article or interview is an original contribution of major 
significance; rather, the Petitioner must document the actual impact of the Beneficiary's work. The 
plain language of the criterion requires that the contributions be "of major significance in the field" 
rather than limited to a single newspaper and its readership , or a single television program and its 
viewership . The Petitioner has not established, for example, the impact or influence of the 
Beneficiary's articles or interviews beyond readership or viewership so as to establish that her work 
was of major significance in the field. Further, the Petitioner did not show how the Beneficiary's 
interviews of selected individuals in arts and business reflects original contributions of major 
significance to her overall field. Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed 
information explaining how the Beneficiary's work qualifies as original contributions of major 
significance in the field . 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 responsible for making the final determination regarding a foreign 
national's eligibility for the benefit sought. In addition, such letters from experts supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USC IS may evaluate the content of those letters as 
to whether they support the foreign national's eligibility. Here, without additional , specific evidence 
showing that the Beneficiary's original work has been unusually influential, substantially impacted 
the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, it cannot 
be concluded that she meets this regulatory criterion. 8 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the Beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
journals, or other major media. 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6). 
The Petitioner initially asserted that the evidence of the Beneficiary's interviews forl I 
~e ofl I in 2009 and the .... l ____ ___,_ 
L___J in 2010 meets this criterion . On motion, the Petitioner asserted that these articles, as well as 
8 The Petitioner reviousl claimed that the Beneficia also meets this criterion based on her authorshi of the books 
.__ _____ __. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish how these books reflect original 
contributions of major significance in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner claims eligibility based on the testimonial 
evidence above and does not address these works. 
7 
the Beneficiar 's books 
~-------------~ an ~--------~ satisfied the requirements of this 
criterion. The Director determined that the documentation submitted did not establish the 
Beneficiary's eligibility under this criterion because the Petitioner did not establish the scholarly 
nature of the Beneficiary's articles and books. We note that, outside of academia, scholarly articles 
are typically written for learned individuals in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner requests that we consider the Beneficiary's authorship of ._I ___ ....,,........ 
and.__ ____________ ~ as comparable evidence under .........,_ _________ .....,...... 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). That provision allows for comparable evidence if the 
listed criteria do not readily apply to an individual's occupation. When submitting evidence that it 
wishes to be considered as comparable evidence, a petitioner should explain why the regulatory 
criterion does not pertain to a beneficiary's occupation and how the evidence submitted is 
"comparable" to the objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii). 
Here, the Petitioner does not assert, and the documentation submitted does not establish, that executive 
editors are unable to author scholarly articles in the field in professional journals or other major media. 
The fact that the Beneficiary has not authored such articles is not evidence that the criterion does not 
apply to her occupation. In addition, the Petitioner has not explained why these materials, which 
consist of articles in lifestyle magazines, two children's books, three works of adult fiction, and an 
interview of I I for I Is autobio.graphy, all written for a general readership, 
should be considered as comparable to scholarly articles published in professional journals or other 
major media. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that this evidence should be considered 
as comparable evidence under this criterion, or that it otherwise establishes that the Beneficiary meets 
this criterion. 
Based on the above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
On motion, the Petitioner claimed eligibility under this criterion based on the Beneficiary's role withD 
.__~-----~------,-1 The scope of this evidentiary criterion focuses on the Beneficiary and the 
relative importance of her position within the scope of the organizations that have employed her. 
Employment in a critical or essential capacity should be apparent from a beneficiary's impact on the 
organization or the establishment's activities. The evidence must demonstrate that a beneficiary has 
contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the activities of the 
organization or establishment. A beneficiary's performance in this capacity should establish whether 
the role was critical or essential for the organization or establishment as a whole. The Petitioner must 
also demonstrate that the organizations or establishments have a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from.__ _____ ,..,.... _ _____. chief financial officer ofO who 
provides that between 2010 and 2015 the Beneficiary was employed bye=] as editor-in-chief of 
I I and managing director o~ I He states that during her period of employment, 
"[the Beneficiary] received the highest salary after the senior executive committee." On appeal, the 
8 
Petitioner asserts that the submitted letter is sufficient to establish that the Beneficiary's employment with 
D was in a critical or essential capacity. Upon review, the letter froml I does not contain 
detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the Beneficiary's employment with 
~ was responsible for the organization's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning 
of "critical or essential." For example, the Petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how the 
Beneficiary's role differentiated her from other editors-in-chief or managing directors employed by 
the organization, let alone members of its senior executive committee. Moreover,! I does 
not provide any background information or documentation regarding the company, such that it could be 
determined that it is an organization with a distinguished reputation, as required. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. In order to meet 
this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary's past or proffered salary or 
remuneration is high relative to the compensation paid to others working in the field. For the reasons 
outlined below, the record does not establish that the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on the Beneficiary's 
salar at between 2010 and 2015. Specifically, the Petitioner submitted the aforementioned letter 
of regarding the _Beneficiary's sala~ in her previous roles as editor-in-chief of 
.__ ___ .....,..... and managing director o~ I L I states that during the period of 
her employment "[the Ben~ficiary] received an average gross salary of 5,800 euro per month or 69,600 
euro per annum." We note that the record lacks corroborating documentation of the Beneficiary's 
previous earnings, such as tax documents. I I also provides that "based on our knowledge 
for the prevailing conditions in thd._ __ _.fuedia market, the above figures can be considered one of 
the highest salaries in journalism after the economic crisis of 201 O," but he does not support his claims 
regarding his assertion. 
On motion, the Petitioner offered documentation relating to the salaries of "News Editor" and 
"Editor." The Petitioner has not submitted any additional evidence or arguments on appeal. Although 
the Petitioner likens the Beneficiary's salary to other occupations, the Petitioner did not show that she 
commands a high salary "in relation to others in the field." Cf Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994) ( considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); 
see also Skokos v. US. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding 
salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the field); 
Crimson 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 must compare 
the Beneficiary's income with income earned by those in her field as an editor-in-chief and managing 
director during the same time period. We find that the evidence in the record is insufficient to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary has commanded a high salary in relation to others in her field. 
9 
Based on the above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
B. Contract Requirements 
Although not addressed in the decision, the Petitioner's employment agreement with the Beneficiary 
does not specify the Beneficiary's wage, as required. The Petitioner indicated on the Form 1-129 that 
it would employ the Beneficiary in the position of"U.S. Executive Editor" of its I I magazine 
at an annual salary of $90,620.76. Within its initial submission, the Petitioner provided a copy of its 
employment agreement with the Beneficiary dated February 2019, assigning to the Beneficiary the 
representation of I I magazine in the United States. The agreement provides that the 
Beneficiary's duties for the requested three-year validity period will be to "generate reports related to 
the cultural life and lifestyle of the [United States]. .. arrange and elaborate interviews with select 
members of thel !American community as well as with well-known American artists i~ I 
... [ and] represent the publication in forums, seminars, book presentations and other special events in 
the [United States.]" 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B) provides that petitions for O foreign nationals shall be 
accompanied by copies of any written contracts between a petitioner and the beneficiary or, if there is 
no written contract, a summary of the terms of the oral agreement under which the beneficiary will be 
employed. A written contract or, ifthere is none, a summary of the terms of the oral agreement under 
which a beneficiary will be employed, must specify the wage offered and explain the terms and 
conditions of the beneficiary's employment. Upon review, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
requirements set forth in the regulations because the employment agreement has not included a 
description of the wage offered or an agreed upon fee structure, or otherwise indicated how the 
Beneficiary will be paid. The appeal will be dismissed on this additional basis. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record does not satisfy, as required, the evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary 
ability in business: a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of eight possible forms of 
documentation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). In addition, the record does not contain evidence 
sufficient to explain the terms of the Beneficiary's proposed employment. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B). Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is eligible for 
the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the 
above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10