not an alien of extraordinary ability in education, as a professor

(b)(6)

Date: JUL 2 5 2014 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER

INRE: Petitioner: Beneficiary:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of Administrative Appeals 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

FILE:

APPLICATION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(A).

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

SELF-REPRESENTED

INSTRUCTIONS:

Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case.

This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision . Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 . Do not file a motion directly with the AAO.

;;;:;(~ Ron Rosenberg r-Chief, Administrative Appeals Office

www.uscis.gov

JoeW

Text Box

Not to be confused with: http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/the-case-of-the-premature-professor

http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/the-case-of-the-premature-professor

JoeW

Text Box

The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in education, as a professor of law and economics, as an EB-1A instead of EB-1B, which is for "outstanding professors". This is a compilation of three AAO non-precedential decisions for just one case.

(b)(6)

NON-PRECEDENT DECISION

DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition on January 26, 2012. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which the director dismissed on December 4, 2012. The petitioner then filed a motion to reopen, which the director dismissed on September 20, 2013. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the appeal.

The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in education, as a professor of law and economics, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability.

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)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.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.P.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, the petitioner asserts that the director made multiple errors of fact and law in his prior decisions relating to the I-140 petition. Specifically, the petitioner asserts that the director erred in concluding that petitioner had not documented a one-time achievement or submitted evidence sufficient to meet at least three criteria. The petitioner also raises several arguments on appeal relating to work authorization, advance parole, a pending I-485 application, and delayed processing times. The only form before us on appeal, however, is the Form I-140, and this decision is limited to that petition.

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 documentation,

(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and

JoeW

Highlight

JoeW

Highlight

(b)(6)


(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 immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 10151 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. !d.; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2).

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).

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 our decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.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 our 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)).

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, we will review the evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d.

1 Specifically, the court stated that we had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements

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)


II. ANALYSIS

A. Evidentiary Criteria2

1. One-Time Achievement

The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirement for a one-time achievement, as outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In asserting that the one-time achievement requirement was met, the petitioner submitted documentary evidence showing that he won the Specifically, the petitioner submitted (1) an attestation from Coordinator of an unidentified organization, affirming. that the petitioner won the in the Single Judge category, (2) a photograph of the petitioner at an Innovare event with a caption from an unidentified source attesting to the award, and (3) an confirming that the petitioner is the author of an award-winning project in the Individual Judge category.

As evidence of the significance of this award, the petitioner initially submitted a webpage from the website which states:

The objective of the prize Innovare is to identify, reward and disseminate innovative practices carried out by magistrates, members of the State and federal Prosecutors, public defenders and public and private lawyers from all over Brazil, which are increasing the quality of judicial service and contributing to the modernisation of [] Brazilian justice.

The petitioner also submitted an online article stating that a practice in the Dominican Republic won the first International category of this award i The article specifically states that included an International category for the first time in , five years after the petitioner's award. In response to the director' s Request for Evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted an online article from

The article states that the recognizes the top for improving the quality of its justice system, and does not indicate that an international rize existed prior to Similarly, the other new materials relating to the International Prize on or after do not indicate that the International Prize

existed prior to The one new article discussing a pre-2010 awardee, from states: ' was created in Brazil in to recognize,

award and foster knowledge about innovative practices in [the] Rule of Law among Brazil's judiciary, prosecutors, pubic defendants and lawyers." This article does not suggest that the award had an international component prior to

Based on this information, the director concluded that the petitioner had not established that he had won an international version of the In the motion to reconsider, the petitioner asked that the director reconsider that conclusion without explaining how the director erred. The director reaffirmed the initial determination. In the motion to reopen, the petitioner no longer asserted that this

2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision.

(b)(6)


award is a major internationally recognized award. On appeal, the petitioner asserts: "The affidavits and documents attached had showed that is internationally recognized as one of the top awards for Judges of America, Europe and [the] United Kingdom' by the International Bar Association, Human Rights Institute, Latin Lawyer, Supreme Courts and Attorney General Offices."

Congress' example of a one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Significantly, even a lesser internationally recognized award could serve to meet only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet at least three. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large and includes a large cash prize. The petitioner did not submit independent objective evidence, which establishes that either one of the two types of the

·sa major, internationally recognized award.

Neither the statute nor the legislative history addresses what awards less prestigious and recognized than the Nobel Prize qualify as major, internationally recognized awards. Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F.Supp. 2d 1339, 1345 (W.D. Wash. 2011) aff'd 683 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012). Congress felt it unnecessary and perhaps inadvisable to define "major" in this context and, instead, entrusted that decision to the administrative process. !d.

As stated by the director, the petitioner has not established he won the which did not exist in 2005 when the petitioner won the The petitioner has not established that his national level prize is a one-time achievement, defined as a major internationally recognized award. For example, the petitioner did not submit evidence that, prior to 2010, the professional, trade or general media at a global level covered the issuance of these awards.

2. Remaining Evidentiary Categories

Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).

The petitioner has submitted the following evidence pursuant to this criterion:

1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

(b)(6)


The petitioner does not continue to assert that the last three items are qualifying, and the petitioner did not establish that they are more than local or regional in scope. Moreover, the fourth item does not name the petitioner.

The director concluded that is nationally recognized, but is only one award for a criterion that, consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence at section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, requires awards or prizes in the plural. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the Diploma of Merit of Accounting is also nationally recognized.

Regarding the Diploma of Merit of Accounting, the petitioner submitted, along with the certificate for the award, an English-language 1992 resolution by a Brazilian authority that addresses the selection process for the Diploma of Merit. The document bears no indicia that it is a copy from an official publication or downloaded from a website. Without documentation of the source of this information, the document has limited probative value. Moreover, the selection criteria indicate that while both the Federal Accounting Council and Regional Accounting councils can name candidates, it is the Federal Accounting Council that selects the winners by majority vote. The petitioner's certificate, however, is from the Regional Council of Accounting of the State of Sao Paulo. Moreover, the resolution states that the diplomas recognize "those that have distinguished themselves in a remarkable or relevant [way] and contributed directly or indirectly, for the improvement and enhancement of the supervisory bodies of the profession." The petitioner's diploma, however, recognizes only "relevant and good professional services rendered to the accounting profession and society." Thus, the petitioner has not established that his certificate from a regional authority is the same certificate that the resolution addresses. The petitioner, therefore, has not established that it is a nationally recognized award for excellence.

Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish his eligibility for this criterion.

Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).

The director determined that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of the regulation. The petitioner has discussed membership in several associations, but on appeal relies solely on membership in the following:

1. 2. 3. 4.

The petitioner also relies on his election as a Counselor of the The petitioner asserts that only an extraordinary professional can have five memberships in different fields of research. The petitioner further asserts that the requirement for outstanding achievements for counselors of the is apparent from the small number of counselors.

(b)(6)


Along with the Form I-140 petition, the petitioner submitted copies of his membership cards for various associations without any evidence pertaining to the membership requirements for the associations. Moreover, these cards do not all match the associations the petitioner discusses. Instead, the cards represent the petitioner's (1) lawyer's identification from the Bar Association of

: (2) Professional Identity card from the of the and (3) identity card from the confirming the

petitioner's license. The director requested evidence of the membership requirements, including the associations' constitution or by laws. In response to the RFE, the etitioner noted that the Brazilian Bar exam has a low passage rate, asserted that the re uires a difficult proficiency exam, inferred a requirement of outstanding achievements for the from the small number of members, and asserted that requires membership in the Brazilian Bar.

In support of his assertions, the petitioner submitted (1) an article about a change in insurance law that does not mention any association's membership requirements; (2) requirements for registration as a

including an examination; (3) an article noting that in December 2010, only 9.74 percent of applicants passed the Brazilian bar exam; (4) one page of the that does not address bar membership requirements; and (5) information from website affirming that the association is the largest membership association for Latin American and "perpetuates itself as a bulwark in defending the prerogatives of unrestricted Class Counsel." Finally, the petitioner submitted information about the Board of Directors oJ that discusses the board's mission, but does not suggest that it is an association with membership or discuss any membership requirements.

At issue is not the number of associations of which the petitioner is a member, but the membership requirements of those associations. The petitioner has not submitted the associations ' constitution, bylaws or equivalent information confirming the membership requirements and selection process for these associations. With respect to the IBA, the petitioner only documented that he is a licensed actuary. A license is not a membership. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) and (E). Regardless, with respect to this license and the petitioner's accounting and bar memberships, these credentials are based on a professional proficiency examination. Demonstrating the minimum proficiency to practice in a field, even as the result of a competitive examination, is not an outstanding achievement in that field.

With respect to the petitioner's elected position, on appeal, the petitioner asserts that only 36 members of the which has members, are elected to be a Counselor. As such, the petitioner asserts that being a Counselor requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized national and international experts. The record includes a letter and accompanying translation from the

which states: "[the petitioner] was elected to the position of Effective Counselor of this for the period 1998/2001, having been sworn on January 5th 1998." While the letter confirms that the petitioner was a Counselor, the letter does not indicate that selection to the post required outstanding achievements or that membership is judged by national or international experts. Consequently, record does not contain evidence supporting the petitioner's claims. 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

(b)(6)


(Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)).

Accordingly, the petitioner did not satisfy the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).

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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).

The petitioner submitted the following evidence in support of this criterion:

1. A letter indicating the petitioner's presentation will be published on a consortium's web site; 2. A copy of online comments made on www.time.com, which include the petitioner's comment; 3. The first few pages of searches for the petitioner's name on Google and Bing; 4. Various instances where the petitioner's name appears in a "Bibliography" section; 5. An online document with no visible web address titled,'

6. An online document from Google Translate with an incomplete title; and 7. Online articles that the petitioner authored.

The director requested evidence documenting that the materials appeared in professional or major trade ublications or other major media. In response, the petitioner submitted a

While the petitioner asserted that the newspaper is "the biggest newspaper of Latin America," the information the petitioner submitted about the does not confirm that claim about the newspaper. First the information discusses the group's website and multiple publications, such as

At issue is not the size of the but the circulation of the newspaper that carried the article, The director concluded the article was not about the petitioner.

In support of his first motion, the petitioner submitted evidence that Time Magazine published his letter to the editor and other articles that mention him by name but are not about him. The director affirmed his initial determination, concluding that the evidence did not constitute published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade journals or other major media. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director erred because the petitioner has more "citations" than

A review of the submitted evidence indicates that the director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet the regulatory requirements for this criterion. The articles and letter to the editor are not published material about the petitioner. The regulation views authored articles as a separate evidentiary requirement from published materials. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).

The petitioner did not submit evidence of thousands of citations. Rather, he submitted the results from online searches for his name. A list of results from a search on an online search engine does not demonstrate that any one of the results constitutes published material that is about the petitioner and appears in a professional or major trade journal or other major media. The petitioner has not established

(b)(6)


that the actual articles he submitted constitute published material about the petitioner in professional or major trade journals or other major media.

The inclusion of the petitioner's name in a bibliography that lists several references does not demonstrate that the article referencing the petitioner's work is about the petitioner. Thus, those bibliographies do not meet this criterion.

Accordingly, the petitioner has not established his eligibility for 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).

The director determined that the petitioner established his eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the record supports the director's determination in this regard.

Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).

The director determined that the submitted evidence did not establish the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. The petitioner submitted the following evidence in support of this criterion during these proceedings:

1. Published material about 2. A letter from 3. A letter from

4. A letter from ,SA;

5. A letter from Brazil;

6. Email correspondence from

7. Evidence that the petitioner authored four books and two book chapters; 8. A printed webpage of articles published in an accounting class portal; 9. Portions of selected bibliographies; 10. Google scholar search results.

Brazil; Governor,

On appeal, the petitioner asserts that "National Recognition Week" took place as a result of the petitioner's win of the and was a subsequent effort to im lement the petitioner's manner of practice across Brazil. The published material about however, postdates the oetitioner's award by six years and does not mention the petitioner, the title of his project, or the As stated above, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22I&NDec. at 165 (citingMatterofTreasureCraftofCalifornia, 14I&NDec. at 190).

(b)(6)


While the petitioner asserts that he was the mentor and creator of the questions for the Proficiency Examination of certified public accountants in Brazil, the record does not support that claim. Mr.

, in a letter addressed to the petitioner, thanks the petitioner for his "invaluable contribution made by you to the during our administration. This collaboration contributed significantly to the development and recognition of our profession." Mr. , however, makes no mention of the proficiency examination and does not explain the petitioner's role in rewriting that examination. 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).

The letter from Mr. acknowledges the Governor's receipt of the petitioner's book and congratulates the petitioner on its publication. The two-sentence letter is akin to a constituent letter responding to an unsolicited submission and is not indicative of the petitioner's impact in his field.

In addition, the letters and email correspondence from Mr. Mr. , and Dean are vague and any discussion of contributions is limited to the impact that the petitioner

had on their specific organization or on a specific event. For instance, Mr. rites:

We would like to reiterate our congratulations for your brilliant presentation, which caused a very positive impact on the participants, thanks to the quality and professionalism demonstrated by you, giving auditors the opportunity to recycle and extend their knowledge in the professional field, thus our goals have been met.

solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).

Regarding the petitioner's authorship of four books and two book chapters, the petitioner has not submitted supplemental evidence that indicates that the books or the book chapters impacted the field as a whole. See Visinscaia v. Beers, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). Furthermore, the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding authorship of scholarly articles. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Therefore, the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from authorship or scholarly articles absent evidence that the articles have had an impact indicative of a contribution of major significance.

Similarly, the webpages and bibliographies do not demonstrate an impact on the petitioner's field as a whole. The list of reading material for a. class that appears on a web portal only demonstrates the applicability of those materials to a specific accounting class. There is no indication that the articles on the web portal were available outside the context of one accounting class. The petitioner has not explained how such limited access could impact the field as a whole. See Visinscaia, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6. Furthermore, as noted above, the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding authorship of articles. The selected bibliographies that the petitioner submitted, which show that an item that the petitioner authored appears in the bibliography of a text, do not include

(b)(6)


the information regarding the citing articles and some bear no indicia of publication. These printed pages from various bibliographies, because they provide no context, lack probative value.

The Google Scholar results are not indicative of the number of citations to the petitioner's work. While the Google results are for the petitioner's full name in quotation marks, the Google Scholar results are for a limited portion of his name. Thus, the search provided results from other individuals who have a similar name, including an individual with ' in his name. Also, the results include all references to his name rather than simply those articles that cite the petitioner's articles, books, or chapters. Therefore, the results do not show a list of scholarly articles whose authors have relied upon and cited the petitioner's work. Moreover, they are in the aggregate and cannot demonstrate that any one of the petitioner's articles garnered widespread attention in the field.

Accordingly, the petitioner has not established his eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).

Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).

The director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion and the record supports the director's conclusions regarding the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to this criterion.

Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii).

The petitioner initially submitted evidence under this criterion along with his Form I-140. The director determined in his decision that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of the regulation. The petitioner does not raise this issue on appeal. Therefore, the petitioner abandoned this claim. See Sepulveda v. US Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (111

h Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885, at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). ·

Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).

The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation." In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which the alien was responsible for the success or standing of the organization or establishment. Moreover, a role is essentially experience, and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) provides that evidence of experience shall consist of letters from current or former employers. Thus, the petitioner's assertion that the evidence he submitted under this criterion is not from current or former employers does not support a finding that he submitted the requisite evidence.

(b)(6)


Regardless of whether the authors represent the petitioner's current or former employer, the content of the letters does not support the petitioner' s claim to meet this criterion. In support of this criterion, the petitioner claims he submitted letters from: (1) the President of the (2) the former regarding the appointment as a Judge at the Court of Tax; and (3) the Governor of As discussed above, the letter from Mr. of the

does not identify a specific role the petitioner performed for the council and does not provide specific examples of the petitioner's impact on that organization. The letter from Mr.

is not from the Governor of the but the head of his office, is two sentences long, and appears to be a response to the petitioner's unsolicited submission of his book.

confirms the petitioner's appointment as "an effective member of the Mr. does not explain how that role fits within the overall hierarchy of the court or provide examples of the petitioner's impact on the court. 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), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.).

Finally, Dr. asserts that the petitioner "performed a leading role for the as [the] Vice President of [the]

J Dr. does not explain his direct knowledge of this position. As stated above, evidence of experience must be in the form of letters from the petitioner's current or former employers. 8 C.F.R § 204.5(g)(1). Moreover, Dr. does not describe the petitioner's duties. As stated above, merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner' s burden of proof. !d. In addition, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15.

Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the plain language requirements for this criterion.

B. Summary

The petitioner has failed to submit sufficient relevant, probative evidence to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence.

III. CONCLUSION

The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international accla~ and is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.

Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be 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" 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." 8 C.F.R.

(b)(6)


§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While we conclude that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, we need not explain that conclusion in a final merits determination? Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. at 1122. The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved.

The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

.-

3 As noted earlier, we maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I.,--&-N7 Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).

(b)(6)

Date: DEC 1 5 2014 Office:

IN RE: Petitioner: Beneficiary:

TEXAS SERVICE CENTER

U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Office of Administrative Appeals 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090

Washington, DC 20529-2090


FILE:

APPLICATION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1153(b )(1 )(A).


SELF-REPRESENTED

INSTRUCTIONS:


This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency

policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to

your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a

motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B)

within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please revie w the Form I-290B instructions at

http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements.

See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO.

Thank you,

�� Ron Rosenberg

Chief, Administrative Appeals Office

www.uscis.gov

(b)(6)

NON-PRECEDENT DECISION Page 2

DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition on January 26, 2012. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which the director dismissed on December 4, 2012. The petitioner then filed a motion to reopen, which the director dismissed on September 20, 2013. On July 25, 2014, we dismissed the petitioner's appeal, finding that he did not establish his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. We will dismiss the motion.

I. Motion to Reconsider

A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that our original decision was based on an incorrect application of law or United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the original decision based on the previous factual record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which seeks a new hearing based on new or previously unavailable evidence. Compare 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(2).

On motion, the petitioner contests our conclusions relating to criteria under the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (v) and (viii). The petitioner has not shown that we should grant a motion to reconsider.

Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i).

On motion, the petitioner asserts that his 2001 Diploma of Merit of Accounting is a nationally recognized award for excellence in the field. The petitioner made the same assertion on appeal. In our July 25, 2014 decision, we concluded that the petitioner did not submit sufficient relevant, probative and credible evidence showing that the award is · qualifying under the criterion. Specifically, we made the following findings: (1) the petitioner did not establish the source of the document he submitted to address the selection process of the award; (2) the etitioner's award certificate indicated that the awarding entity was the __ _

a regional authority; and (3) the award recognized "relevant and good professional services rendered to the accounting profession and society," not excellence in the field. The petitioner has not shown that we should grant a motion to reconsider as relating to this criterion.

First, the petitioner acknowledges that a regional authority, the issued the award. He states that has "more accountants of

[sic] Brazil (250,000) and it is responsible for the excellence of the profession in the country, having the best Universities and Colleges." The petitioner has provided no factual or legal bases to support his statement that the regional authority is responsible for the excellence of the profession in the country. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). In addition, the May 20, 2013 obituary entitled "Die Sergio Machado Approbato,"

(b)(6)


which the petitioner submits on motion, does not establish that the petitioner's award, issued by a regional authority, enjoys national recognition.1 While the article mentions that Mr. received the ' ' it does not provide any information about the award at the regional or even federal level. Rather, the article indicates that the

an award that the petitioner did not receive, is "the highest honor of the accounting profession." Finally, the record does not reveal the source of this obituary or establish that the source is an authority on Brazilian accounting awards.

Third, the petitioner has not shown that the award recognizes excellence in the field. The petitioner asserts that his receipt of the award, which recognized "relevant and good professional services rendered to the accounting profession and society," indicated that the "accounting profession and society had attested the excellent, relevant and excellent professional services of [the petitioner] ." The petitioner has provided no legal bases to show that "relevant and good professional services" is equivalent to "excellence in the field," as required under the plain language of the criterion. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulation does not satisfy the petitioner' s burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *1, 5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Similarly, we need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. United States Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.C. Dist. 1990).

Fourth, the petitioner makes conclusory statements about the significance of the award, stating that it was "the highest honor of the accounting profession" and that the winners received "public recognition." In support of these statements the petitioner provides a number of website addresses, all of which appear to originate from translate.google.com which translated foreign language materials from other websites. The petitioner has not submitted the foreign language materials or their English translations that meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.P.R. 103.2(b )(3).Z

Moreover, website addresses are not evidence. If the petitioner had wished that we consider the materials on these websites, he should have submitted printouts of the materials, along with information on the source of the materials and the reliability of the website.

Finally, the petitioner has not shown the relevance of his involvement with the national sufficiency exam for accountants and auditors as relating to this criterion. On motion, the petitioner provides information relating to his being involved in drafting uestions for the exam. He has not stated that he received the because of his involvement in the exam, or that his involvement in the exam establishes that the award is qualifying under the criterion.

1 Although the petitioner has filed a motion to reconsider, not a motion to reopen, he has submitted new evidence- a May 20, 2013 article entitled' -in support of his motion. 2 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) provides, "Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English."

(b)(6)


Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown any error in our July 25, 2014 decision that would form a basis for us to reconsider our previous determination. See 8 C.P.R.

§ 103.5(a)(3).

Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).

On motion, the petitioner reiterates arguments he presented on appeal. Specifically, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because of his membershi in the ' [the]

' The petitioner further asserts that his "election for

_ was only possible due to his outstanding achievements for the Brazilian society Gudged by recognized national and international experts in the accountant profession)." The petitioner reiterates his prior assertion that only "36 members were chosen Counselor in more than 403,000 registered accountants in Brazil." In our July 25, 2014 decision, we considered these arguments in depth and concluded that they were either unsupported or insufficient to show the petitioner met this criterion. Specifically, we concluded that the petitioner did not submit relevant, probative and credible evidence, such as the associations' constitution, bylaws or other relevant information, relating to the associations' membership requirements. We further concluded that although the petitioner had shown that he is accredited to practice in certain fields after taking professional proficiency exams, "[ d]emonstrating the minimum proficiency to practice in a field, even as the result of a competitive examination, is not an outstanding achievement in that field." Finally, we concluded that although the evidence established the petitioner's position as a

the record lacked evidence showing that the post required outstanding achievements or that membership was judged by national or international experts, as required by the plain language of the criterion.

On motion, the petitioner has not identified any error in our decision as relating to this criterion or

cited any legal authority as indicative of a legal error in our previous decision. Rather, the petitioner reiterates arguments he had already made on appeal and requests that we reconsider our decision. Such a request, unsupported by any legal authority, is not a valid basis for a motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown any error in our July 25, 2014 decision that would form a basis for us to reconsider our previous determination.

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. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).

On motion, the petitioner asserts that the December 1999 material and November 2011 material, published in , meet this criterion. The petitioner asserts that

(b)(6)


has "the largest circulation and printing of [sic] Brazil" and that it is "the biggest newspaper of Latin America." The petitioner states, "Paid Circulation- Octuber fsicl I 2012: Sundays: 321.535 copiesWeekdays: 297.927 copies." The petitioner cites website as support for these figures. The petitioner has not submitted the actual material from the website that relates to these figures. On motion, the petitioner also lists a number of other website addresses, all of which appear to originate from which translated foreign language materials from other websites. Other than listing the website addresses, the petitioner has not submitted any materials from these websites. The materials from the websites appear to be foreign language materials. The petitioner has not submitted the actual foreign language materials or their English translations that meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.P.R. 103.2(b )(3). Moreover, website addresses are not evidence. If the petitioner had wished that we consider the materials on these websites, he should have submitted printouts of the materials, along with information on the source of the materials and the reliability of the website.

In our July 25, 20104 decision, we concluded that the petitioner did not submitted relevant, probative and credible evidence showing that which the petitioner asserts on motion to be one of the "national dailies of general interest," constituted "other major media." Specifically, we concluded that evidence of the size of the without evidence of the circulation of

was not sufficient to show that t e publication constituted other major media. Moreover, we concluded that the petitioner had not shown that the published materials in the record were about the petitioner. Specifically, we found that the petitioner's evidence, including a list of search results from an online search engine, his authorship of published materials, and the inclusion of his name in bibliographies, was insufficient to show that the materials were about the petitioner.

On motion, the petitioner asserts that a December 1999 material is "about [him], as the very top of the endeavor." The petitioner did not submit a copy of the article along with a complete certified translation that meets the requirements at 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(3). Rather, he submitted the website address through While it is the petitioner's burden to provide the foreign language document and a translation that complies with 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(3), we did access the website the petitioner provided? The article is about a new accounting examination and quotes the petitioner as a member of the discussing the purpose of the examination. The article is not about the petitioner and does not identify him as someone at the top of his field as claimed. As such, the petitioner has not established that this article is about him, relating to his work.

The petitioner further asserts on motion that the November 2001 article is "regarding [him], as the very top of the endeavor." The article, however, is a question and answer piece about the impact of the change in Brazilian currency that mentions his name only in the introduction and a photograph caption identifying him as one "who failed to submit the form via the

3 We accessed the website on December 12, 2014 and incorporated a printout of the article as translated by into the record of proceeding. We reiterate that this translation does not comply with the regulation

at 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b )(3), which requires certified translations for foreign language documentation.

(b)(6)


Internet." The petitioner provides no legal support for his assertions that materials that briefly mention his name constitute materials about him, relating to his work in the field.

Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown any error in our July 25, 2014 decision that would form a basis for us to reconsider our previous determination. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 103.5(a)(3).

Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).

On motion, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because his publications have garnered citations, he was "the mentor and creator for questions for the

in Brazil," and because of the Google search results for his name. The petitioner has not shown that a motion to reconsider is warranted.

First, the petitioner asserts that "USCIS stated in this decision that 'his publications have been cited over 100 times."' This statement does not appear in our July 25, 2014 decision. In fact, we concluded in our decision that we could not determine how many citations the petitioner's published work had garnered, because the search results from scholar .google.com were for a limited portion of the petitioner's name (yielding results for individuals not the petitioner) . The petitioner's quote comes from page nine of the director' s January 26, 2012 decision. The petitioner has quoted the passage out of context. Specifically, the relevant part of the director's decision reads, "A Google Scholar search list of the beneficiary's name was submitted, and the beneficiary explained that his publication[s] have been cited over 100 times. However, the search results are not accompanied by certified translations, so no information can be gleaned from this printout." A reading of the decision shows that the director, as we did in our July 25, 2014 decision, concluded that the petitioner did not submit relevant, probative and credible evidence supporting his claim as to how many citations his published articles have garnered.

Second, the petitioner provides a list of names, which includes his name that he claims were a

As supporting evidence, the petitioner cites the February 2001, page 1 0" and a website address that originated from The

petitioner has not submitted a copy of the journal or the online material. As such, he has not established the reliability or accuracy of the assertion that he drafted questions for the exam. The petitioner has also not provided details relating to what questions or how many questions he drafted, if any of the questions he drafted have been used in the exam, or how drafting exam questions constitutes contributions of major significance in the field that fundamentally advanced or significantly changed the field as a whole.

Third, the petitioner has not shown that Google search results of his full name are indicative of his impact in a field. As stated in the director's January 26, 2012 decision, the "relevance of the Google search was uncertain," because a Google search includes results that mention the petitioner's name

(b)(6)


without providing information relating to the nature of the reference. As such, Google search results, without evidence that the search results relate to the petitioner's original contributions of major significance in the field, are insufficient to show that the petitioner meets this criterion.

Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown any error in our July 25, 2014 decision that would form a basis for us to reconsider our previous determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3).

Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).

On motion, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because he has performed a leading role for a number of organizations or establishments, including the judicial system in Brazil and Latin America, the the

In our July 25, 2014 decision, we concluded that letters from individuals who were not the petitioner's current or former employers were insufficient to establish the petitioner met this criterion, because these individuals lacked first�hand knowledge of the petitioner's experience within the particular organizations or establishments. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(g)(1). We then considered all the evidence in the record, including letters from individuals who were not the petitioner's current or former employers. We concluded that the letters did not establish what role the petitioner performed �� or�

how his role fit within the overall hierarchy of these organizations or establishments; or what impact the petitioner had in the organizations or establishments. On motion, the petitioner does not specifically identify any error in our July 25, 2014 decision. Rather, he asserts that his roles in some of the organizations and establishments we did not discuss in our July 25, 2014 decision meet the criterion. The petitioner has not shown that a motion to reconsider is warranted.

First, the petitioner' s receipt of the is not evidence that the petitioner meets this criterion. On motion, the petitioner asserts that his receipt of the award is "a strong proof that [he] had performed a leading role for the ' The receipt of awards falls under the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and does not also serve to meet this criterion absent evidence that that the petitioner has performed a leading or critical role for qualifying organizations or establishments. The distinction between these two criteria is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence and the regulatory requirement that the petitioner meets at least three criteria. See section 203(b )(ll{A)(i) of the Act; see also 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, according to a document entitled " " the main objective of the award is "to encourage and recognize good initiatives of judges, lawyers, public defenders and prosecutors." Neither this document nor any other evidence in the record established that the petitioner received this award because of a leading or critical role he played in the judicial system in Brazil or Latin America.

(b)(6)

NON-PRECEDENT DECISION PageS

Second, the September 15, 1993 letter from Vice President of Operations at the indicates that the petitioner submitted suggestions to Mr. who then forwarded them on to the appropriate department. The letter does not indicate that the petitioner's "ideas had provided a great innovation for the financial institution," as the petitioner asserts on motion. In fact, the letter makes no reference to the impact, if any, the petitioner or his suggestions had at the bank or that the petitioner had performed either a leading or critical role for the bank.

Third, the evidence in the record does not establish that the petitioner has performed either a leading or critical role for any educational institution. The record includes evidence that the petitioner, while emrloyed at , was invited to speak at

conferences, and that the petitioner had taught classes at The evidence in the record does not establish how the petitioner's role in the educational

institutions fit within the institutions' overall hierarchy, such that his role was leading within the institutions. The evidence in the record also does not establish that his impact on these institutions were such that his role was critical to the institutions. The petitioner has not explained how his participation in conferences impacted such that the impact indicates that he was someone who performed a critical role for the school. An August employment offer letter states that the petitioner, as a member of the school's adjunct faculty, "will make a significant contribution to the overall success of the Faculty Department and to [the school] through [his] efforts." In a July 2012 email addressed to all members of the school's faculty and librarians, the school's former Dean of Academic Affairs, gave notification of his upcoming resignation and discussed in general terms the impacts that the faculty and librarians had on the students. Nothing in the record establishes that the petitioner's impact at was such that he had performed a critical role for the school. Rather, the evidence shows that the petitioner performed the job he was hired to do at

Finally, although the evidence includes the petitioner's involvement in other organizations or establishments, including the

, it does not establish specifically how the petitioner's involvement fit within the hierarchy of the organizations or establishments or demonstrate that the petitioner had impacted the organizations or establishments consistent with someone who performed a critical role. For example,

President of states that "[the petitioner's] exemplary conduct was of fundamental importance in defending the interest of Taxpayers." Mr. , notes that the petitioner had been "a representative of this

' but he does not provide details on how the petitioner's role fit within the hierarchy of the organization or what specific impact the petitioner had on the organization. Mr. one sentence praising the petitioner in general terms is insufficient to show that the petitioner had performed a leading or critical role for the

Similarly, although President of the states that the petitioner is "of acknowledged competence, possessing special

expertise in tax matters and adviser of this Regional Board," Mr. provides no details relating to how the petitioner's role fits within the hierarchy of the organization or what impact the petitioner

(b)(6)


had in the organization. Mr. letter recommending the petitioner for a position as a member of the is insufficient to show that the petitioner has performed a leading or critical role for the As discussed, merely repeating the language of the statute or regulation does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108; Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942, at *5. Similarly, we need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 17.

Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown any error in our July 25, 2014 decision that would form a basis for us to reconsider our previous determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3).

II. Arguments Presented in "Post Script"

In addition to submitting a statement in support of the motion, the petitioner submits a document entitled "Post Script." We have reviewed and considered the arguments the petitioner presented and conclude that none of the arguments establish that we should grant a motion to reconsider.

First, the petitioner discusses his without specifically challenging our conclusion that the award does not constitute a "one-time achievement" under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, although the petitioner asserts that the award has received "worldwide media" attention since 2004, he has not presented any relevant, probative or credible evidence in support of his assertion. He cites a website address, stating that the website is an example of "the general media in the United States cover[ing] in 2009 the 'prestigious

"' He, however, has presented no evidence relating to the nature of the website showing that it constitutes a notable media source. He has not even presented the material from the website that purportedly reported on the Regardless, the petitioner claims to have received the in 2005; he must therefore show the award's recognition in 2005, not in 2009. As stated in our previous decision, the record reveals that at some point after 2005, the awarding authority initiated an international The petitioner has made additional assertions relating to the award that are conclusory and not based on relevant, probative or credible evidence. As stated above, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffic� 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Moreover, we need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 17.

Second, the petitioner quotes our July 25, 2014 decision out of context. For example, the petitioner asserts that we prejudged his case and made contradictory statements about his awards. These assertions are not supported by a complete reading of our decision. Specifically, on pages 12 to 13 of our decision, we stated that the petitioner had not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence in the field of endeavor, as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3); as such, we need not consider the evidence in the aggregate in a final merits determination. Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent

(b)(6)


regulatory requirement of presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually ,and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). In addition, on page 6 of our decision, when discussing the petitioner's awards, we stated that "[t]he petitioner does not continue to assert that the last items are qualifying," which on motion, the petitioner has quoted to say "the last three items are qualifying . . . . " The petitioner has misquoted our decision or quoted it out of context, which does not provide a basis to reopen our prior decision.

Third, the petitioner makes conclusory statements, including statements relating to his involvement with the in

Brazil, and his involvement with a number of organizations or establishments. As discussed in greater detail above, the petitioner has not shown that we erred in our decision as relating to the relevant criteria. As also stated above, 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. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Moreover, we need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 17.

Finally, the petitioner states that our July 25, 2014 decision did not discuss that he was a "candidate to become immortal," or that he "hold[s] the chair number 12 at the

' The petitioner also continues to discuss what he identifies as the director's errors. These statements do not warrant reconsideration of our decision. The petitioner has not identified the relevant criteria associated with his candidacy "to become immortal" or his holding "the chair number 12." As such, the petitioner has not shown the relevancy of these issues to our determination that he had not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence in the field of endeavor, as required under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner has not provided any legal basis indicating that we must address points that are not relevant or material to eligibility. In addition, we exercised de novo review in our July 25, 2014 decision. As such, we reviewed and considered all the evidence in the record, even if we did not specifically mention each piece of evidence in our decision, and concluded that the petitioner did not establish his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. As we exercise de novo review, we need not specifically address each and every aspect of the director's previous decisions in our decision. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004).

III. Conclusion

The petitioner has not shown that the motion to reconsider should be granted, because he has not stated any valid reason for reconsideration, nor has he sufficiently supported any valid reason for reconsideration with pertinent legal precedent or other legal authority establishing that our July 25, 2014 decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Accordingly, the instant motion to reconsider will be dismissed.

(b)(6)


The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed.

ORDER: The motion is dismissed, our July 25, 2014 decision is affirmed, and the petition remains denied.

(b)(6)

Date:

MAY 0 8 2015

IN RE:

APPLICATION:

Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER

Petitioner: Beneficiary:

U.S. 1>epartment of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Office of Administrative Appeals 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090


FILE:

Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A).


SELF-REPRESENTED

INSTRUCTIONS:


This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency

policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to

your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a

motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B)

within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at

http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements.

See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO.

;3y7J-r Ron Rosenberg

Chief, Administrative Appeals Office

www.uscis.gov

(b)(6)


DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition on January 26, 2012. The petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, which the director dismissed on December 4, 2012. The petitioner filed a motion to reopen, which the director dismissed on September 20, 2013. On July 25, 2014, we dismissed the petitioner's appeal, fmding that he did not establish his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. On December 15, 2014, we dismissed the petitioner's motion to reconsider. The matter is now before us on a second motion to reconsider. We will dismiss the motion.

I. Motion to Reopen and Reconsider

In Part 3 of his Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form I-290B, the petitioner indicates that he is filing a motion to reconsider. In support of his motion, the petitioner has submitted documents that were not previously in the record.

A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that our original decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider is based on the existing record and the petitioner may not introduce new facts or new evidence relative to his or her arguments. In addition, a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision. Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the original decision based on the previous factual record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which seeks a new hearing based on new or previously unavailable evidence. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Accordingly, a motion to reconsider is not the proper filing

·to request consideration of new evidence. The legal authorities on which the petitioner relies

relate to the standard of proof. While the petitioner is correct that the appropriate standard is preponderance of the evidence, that standard does not relieve the petitioner from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements set by regulation . . Matter of Chawathe, 25 I. & N. Dec. 369, 375, n.7 (AAO 2010). Where the regulations require specific evidence, the petitioner is required to submit that evidence. /d. The general immigration policies the petitioner references relate to the benefits of allowing bright individuals to immigrate and do not relate specifically to the classification the petitioner seeks.

Even if we considered the petitioner's motion, which includes the submission of new evidence, as a motion to reopen in addition to a motion to reconsider, the petitioner's new evidence either does not relate to the petitioner's eligibility as of the date of filing or is not persuasive for the reasons discussed below. A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a heavy burden and "must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) "has some latitude in deciding when to reopen a case. [USCIS] should have the right to be restrictive. Granting such motions too freely will permit endless delay of deportation by

(b)(6)


aliens creative and fertile enough to continuously produce new and material facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988). The result also needlessly wastes the time and efforts of the triers of fact who must attend to the filing requests. !d.

On motion, the petitioner has not shown that we should grant a motion to reconsider or, in the alternative, a motion to reopen. The petitioner has asked us to "review [his] entire record for the approval of [the] I-140 [petition]." The petitioner, however, has not shown through citation to legal authority or policy that we erred in our December 15, 2014 decision; nor has he submitted additional evidence that establishes his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. On motion, as relating to the prizes and awards criterion, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the petitioner has provided a list of his accomplishments. Between our July 25, 2014 decision and our December 15, 2014 decision, we discussed six of the eight listed accomplishments and found that they do not constitute internationally or nationally recognized prizes or award for excellence in the field. On motion, the petitioner has not asserted or shown that we erred in our previous findings as relating to these accomplishments. The remaining two accomplishments relate to the petitioner's selection as an

_ .

testimonial survey winner and the Both events occurred after the petitioner filed the petition in December 2011. They therefore do not establish the petitioner's eligibility for the exclusive classification or that we erred in our previous decisions. It is well established that the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Cornm'r 1971). In other words, the petitioner cannot secure a priority date based on the anticipation of future citations at a level consistent with contributions of major significance. See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977); Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (adopting Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the proposition that US CIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition.")

Moreover, the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that an testimonial survey win is recognized on an international or national level or that it is a prize or award in the field(s) in which the petitioner asserts he has extraordinary ability. Specifically, the evidence reflects only that the petitioner submitted a testimonial that he generated savings using public financial management tools about which he learned at an conference and that : plans to use the testimonial for its own marketing purposes. Furthermore, the evidence the petitioner has submitted relating to "

. " consists of a 2015 email that makes no reference to the petitioner's receipt of any prize or award. Rather, the body of the email appears to be a summary of an article translated through Google Translate, translate.google.com. Such a translation does not comply with 8 C.F. R § 102.3(b)(3), which requires complete certified translations. Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown that a motion to reopen or reconsider is warranted. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (3).

On motion, as relating to the membership in associations criterion, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the petitioner has provided a list of seven organizations, asserting that he is a member of each organization. Between our July 25, 2014 decision and our December 15, 2014 decision, we

(b)(6)


discussed five of the seven listed organizations and found that those memberships do not constitute associations that require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. The petitioner has not cited any legal authority or policy demonstrating that we erred in our previous findings as relating to these associations. The remaining two listed associations are the and the

. The petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that he is an member. On motion, he has submitted a Certificate of Attendance, verifying his attendance to a conference. The certificate does not demonstrate the petitioner's membership in the organization. In additio�, the petitioner has not submitted evidence relating to membership requirements, or evidence showing that the organization requires outstanding achievements of its members.

Moreover, although on motion the petitioner has submitted evidence demonstrating his membership ��

_ , the petitioner has not submitted any evidence showing that any of these associations requires outstanding achievements of its members, or evidence that an applicant's qualifications for membership are judged by recognized national or international experts, as required by the plain language of the criterion. Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown that a motion to reopen or reconsider is warranted. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (3).

On motion, as relating to the published material criterion, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the petitioner has submitted an online printout relating to . stating that ' is the Brazilian newspaper with the largest printing and circulation among national dailies of general interest." The printout also includes the publication's circulation information for" [sic] /2012." The selfpromotional assertions comparing the publication with others have minimal evidentiary value. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-5105 SJO 10, 2007 WL 9229758, at *1, 6-7 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007), aff'd, 317 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that we did not have to rely on the promotional assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). Although the online printout indicates that in 2012, the publication's paid circulation numbers were 321,535 copies on Sundays and 297,927 copies on weekdays, the petitioner has not shown that the

edition constitutes major media in that it enjoys a national distribution.

Regardless, as discussed in our December 15, 2014 decision, denying the petitioner's first motion, we concluded that the petitioner did not show that has published material about him, as the petitioner did not submit a copy of the 1999 published material, along with a complete certified translation that meets the requirements at 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(3). Rather, the petitioner provided a website address for the published material. As noted in our previous decision, we nonetheless accessed the website and found that the article is about a new accounting examination and quotes the petitioner as a member of the

_ discussing the purpose of

the examination. We concluded that the published material is not about the petitioner. Similarly, we concluded in our previous decision that the material is not about the petitioner, because it is a question and answer piece about the impact of the change in Brazilian currency that mentions the petitioner's name only in the introduction and a photograph caption identifying him as one "who failed to submit the form via the Internet." On motion, the

(b)(6)

NON-PRECEDENT DECISION PageS

petitioner has not submitted any additional evidence establishing that he meets this criterion or cited a legal authority or USCIS policy demonstrating that we erred in our previous decisions as relating to this criterion. Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown that a motion to reopen or reconsider is warranted. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (3).

On motion, as relating to the original contributions of major significance criterion, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the petitioner has submitted copies of Google search results and a November 19, 1999 letter from President of As discussed in our December 15, 2014 decision, denying the petitioner's first motion, Google search results do not establish an individual's impact in the field. As noted in our decision, the petitioner has not demonstrated the relevance of the Google search results because a Google search includes results that mention the petitioner's name without providing information relating to the nature of the reference. We concluded that Google search results, without evidence that the search results relate to the petitioner's original contributions of major significance in the field, are insufficient to show the petitioner meets this criterion. On motion, the petitioner has not shown through citation of any legal authority or policy that we erred in our findings. Moreover, the purpose of the 1999 letter from Ms. was to coordinate with the petitioner on the publication of his presentation at an conference. The letter does not confirm the actual publication of the petitioner's presentation. More importantly, the letter does not provide information relating to the petitioner or his presentation's impact in the field, or demonstrate that the impact is at a level consistent with contributions of major significance in the field. Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown that a motion to reopen or reconsider is warranted. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (3).

On motion, as relating to the leading and critical role criterion, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the petitioner has submitted a list of organizations or establishments, in which he asserts he has performed either a leading or critical role. The petitioner, however, does not state on motion that we erred in our previous decisions as relating to this criterion or provide a legal authority or policy that demonstrates a legal error in our previous decision. In support of this motion, the petitioner submits a November 23, 1999 letter from National President,

a September 15, 1993 letter from Vice President of Operations at the ; the petitioner's resume; a document entitled ''

'; a January 2015 email to and from a :; a

attendee credential; and a completion certificate.

First, we have considered two pieces of the evidence in our previous decisions. Specifically, in our July 25, 2014 decision, dismissing the petitioner's appeal, we discussed the 1999 letter from Mr.

, finding that it did not establish the petitioner meets the original contributions of major significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The letter also does not establish that the petitioner has met the leading and critical role criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Specifically, the letter establishes that the petitioner presented at the

�

and received positive responses for his presentation. The letter, however, does not

(b)(6)


state what role, if any, the petitioner performed for the Board of Directors of the the organizer of the event, or for any organizations or establishments. The letter

is therefore not sufficient to show that the petitioner meets this criterion. In addition, in our December 15, 2014 decision, dismissing the petitioner's first motion, we discussed the 1993 letter from Mr. finding that it did not establish the petitioner meets the leading and critical role criterion. On motion, the petitioner has not shown through any legal authority or policy that we erred in our findings as relating these two pieces of evidence.

Second, although on motion, the petitioner has submitted additional evidence, he has not shown that the additional evidence establishes that he meets the leading and critical role criterion. The additional evidence shows the petitioner's participation in a number of events. The petitioner, however, has not shown that mere participation constitutes performing either a leading or critical role for any organizations or establishments.

Third, evidence that postdates the filing of the petition in December 2011, specifically a January 2015 email and a 2014 completion certificate, does not establish the petitioner's eligibility. As noted, the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing, and may not rely on events that postdate his filing to establish his eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. at 160; Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175-76.

Finally, the petitioner's resume constitutes his unsubstantiated assertions, which are not evidence establishing his eligibility. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown that a motion to reopen or reconsider is warranted. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (3).

II. Conclusion

The petitioner indicated that he was filing a motion to reconsider. The petitioner has not shown that the motion to reconsider should be granted, because he has not stated any valid reason for reconsideration, nor has he sufficiently supported any valid reason for reconsideration with pertinent legal precedent or other legal authority establishing that our December 15, 2014 decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Accordingly, the instant motion to reconsider will be dismissed. Even if we considered the filing as a motion to reopen, the petitioner has not shown that the new evidence demonstrates his eligibility for the classification at the time of filing.

The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed.

(b)(6)