to dream the impossible dream as a dream expert, analyst, psychologist

i

To Dr_[m th_ Impossi\l_ Dr_[m [s [ Dr_[m Exp_rt, @n[lyst, Psy]hologist

By Joseph Patrick Whalen (Thursday, September 8, 2016)

Matter of A-K-B-, ID# 18062 (AAO Aug. 29, 2016), Dream Psychologist 3rd Motion Denied.

Matter of A-K-B-, ID# 15786 (AAO Feb. 19, 2016), Dream Psychologist 2nd Motion Denied

Matter of A-K-B-, AUG122015_01B2203, Dream Psychologist 1st Motion Denied

Matter of A-K-B-, MAR232015_02B2203, Dream Psychologist Appeal Dismissed

The Self-Petitioner, a “dream expert/analyst/psychologist”, sought classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the field of dream psychology. See INA § 203(b)(1)(A) [8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)]. The director concluded that the Self-Petitioner’s field is psychology, and the petitioner did not contest that conclusion on appeal. Psychology falls under the sciences. USCIS & AAO refused to narrow the field to dream psychology.

This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation.

The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied one of the regulatory criteria, of which three are required to establish eligibility. The single criterion that was met is 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), which states as follows.

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.

On appeal, AAO made similar findings and reaffirmed them in two subsequent decisions on motion. The matter came before AAO on a third motion to reopen. In her motion, the Self-Petitioner submitted additional evidence and maintained that she met two additional criteria, contending that she had:

(1.) Judged the work of others, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv); and

(2.) Served in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).

Upon de novo review, AAO denied the 3rd motion. All four AAO Decisions are attached.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

MATTER OF A-K-B-

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: AUG. 29,2016

MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION

PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER

The Petitioner, a dream expert, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the field of dream psychology. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation.

The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petitiOn. The Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied one of the regulatory criteria, of which three are required to establish eligibility. On appeal, we made similar findings and reaffirmed them in two subsequent decisions on motion.

The matter is now before us on a third motion to reopen. In her motion, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and maintains that she meets two additional criteria as she has judged the work of others and served in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation.

Upon review, we will deny the motion.

I. LAW

A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 1 As noted in our previous decisions, however, the new facts must demonstrate eligibility as of the date of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after a Petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 2 Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions for rehearing and motions for a new

1 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 2 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14l&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'! Comm'r 1971); see also Matter of!zummi, 22 l&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1998) adopting the holding in Matter of Bardouille, 18 l&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981 ), that USC IS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." !d. at 176.

(b)(6)

Matter of A-K-B-

trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. 3 A party seeking to reopen a proceeding _bears a "heavy burden. "4

II. ANALYSIS

The Director previously found that the record contains published material about the Petitioner in major media5 and we agreed with that determination. At issue in the Petitioner's motions is whether the Petitioner meets another two criteria. 6 In our most recent decision, which the Petitioner seeks to reopen, we considered her affirmations that she met the judging and leading or critical role criteria. 7

First, with respect to participating as a judge, we noted that .the new letter from board chair and former president of the

did not suggest that the Petitioner had performed the services described in the letter as of the filing date. We also stated that did not detail what duties the Petitioner performed that constitute judging the work of others in the same or a related field. Second, we similarly found that

did not support his conclusory statement that the Petitioner performs a leading or critical role for with a sufficient explanation of her impact on the entity as of the date of filing. Further, we reiterated the finding from previous decisions that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the distinguished reputation of Finally, we explained that general, solicited letters from local colleagues do not qualify as comparable evidence to confirm eligibility. 8 On motion, the Petitioner offers a new letter from which she maintains clarifies her involvement with as of 2011, well before she filed the petition. She also documents a new television appearance. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that she met more than one criterion as of the date of filing.

A. Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others

The relevant criterion requires evidence of the foreign national's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought.9 The Petitioner relies on the new letter from to show that she had performed as a judge prior to date of filing. He does not, however, state that the Petitioner was the site administrator prior to the filing date in January 2014. Rather, he confirms that she currently serves in that role and has been involved with in some capacity since 2011.

3 INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). 4 /d. at 110. 5 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 6 According to the implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), a petitioner must have a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) or provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including items su_ch as awards, published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 7 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h(3)(iv), (viii). 8 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to rely on comparable evidence where the regulatory standards at subparagraph (h)(3) do not readily apply to her occupation. 9 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv).

2

(b)(6)

Matter of A-K-B-

Moreover, the new letter does not resolve that, as site administrator, the Petitioner serves as a judge of the work of others. While · affirms that the

has approved online courses for continuing education for licensed therapists, he has still not sufficiently explained how the Petitioner, as site administrator, judges the work of others in her field or an allied field.· reiterates his prior statement that the Petitioner "oversees, grades, and judges the work of students." Although our previous decision noted the lack of detail regarding the nature of the Petitioner's judging responsibilities, he does not offer any specifics in his new letter. 10 A list of available courses from website, which the Petitioner supplied with her second motion, does not support a finding that the Petitioner is responsible for judging the work of students. Many ofthe course descriptions suggest they are not graded. For example, the first course listed is a mentored course consisting of a presentation by who will provide "feedback" to students' required forum postings. Other courses appear to be rebroadcasts of symposiums at earlier conferences. In addition, none of the courses list the Petitioner as the presenter or. teacher. Regardless, the routine grading of assignments by teachers does not constitute performing as a judge of the work of others as contemplated by the regulation; not every teacher participates as "a judge" simply by working as a teacher. 11 For the above reasons, the new evidence supporting this motion does not establish that the Petitioner satisfies this criterion.

B. Leading or Critical Role

The relevant regulation requires evidence that the foreign national has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 12 We previously concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that she served as the site administrator for

as of the date of filing or that enjoys a distinguished reputation. In his new letter, does not confirm that the Petitioner was site administrator prior to the date of filing

in 2014. Rather, he discusses her role in scheduling a conference in 2016 and describes his future plans for her skills. This information does not address whether the Petitioner had performed in a leading or critical role for as of January 2014.

10 The O*Net website, prepared for the Department of Labor, provides the normal duties for web administrators. They include: (1) backing up or modifying applications and related data to provide for disaster recovery; (2) determining sources of web page or server problems, and taking action to correct such problems; (3) reviewing or updating web page content or links in a timely manner, using appropriate tools; (4) monitoring systems for intrusions or denial of service attacks, and reporting security breaches to appropriate personnel; and (5) implementing web site security measures, such as firewalls or message encryption. See http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1199.03#Tasks, accessed July I 9, 2016, and incorporated into the record of proceeding. While we acknowledge may assign duties that are different or additional to those typical of a site administrator, it is the Petitioner's burden to corroborate general statements with detailed evidence. 11 USCIS offers serving on a Ph.D. dissertation committee as an example of qualifying evidence rather than suggesting every instructor, teacher, or professor meets this criterion. USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADII-14 8 (Dec. 22, 2010), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 12 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).

3

(b)(6)

Matter of A-K-B-

does confirm that the Petitioner "has been an active member of since 2011, and has presented in two major symposiums at regional and annual conferences and also played a key role in organizing the regional conference in does not, however, identify what the Petitioner's duties were for the regional conference in We previously considered an email notice from a regional representative of affirming that the Petitioner "was an active part of the organizing committee for the Regional Conference in We found in our appellate decision that this information did not detail the nature of the Petitioner's role and that she had not established the reputation of the committee for which she performed this role. does not provide any new facts not present in email correspondence. As stated in our most recent decision on motion, merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. 13 Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 14 The record does not corroborate the nature of the Petitioner's role for as a whole by serving on this single committee.

Finally, the Petitioner did not provide any new evidence documenting the distinguished reputation of Confirmation from that it offers ·approved continuing education courses does not

constitute independent corroboration of its distinguished reputation in the field. For the above reasons, the new exhibits on motion do not demonstrate that the Petitioner has served in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation.

C. Comparable Evidence

The relevant regulation allows the Petitioner to provide comparable evidence where the regulatory criteria do not readily apply to her occupation. 15 In our previous decision, we reiterated that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that the criteria do not readily apply to her occupation and concluded that reference letters generally do not rise to the level of comparable evidence. On motion, the Petitioner does not explain which criteria, if any, do not readily apply to her occupation. She offers corroboration that she appeared on the The submitted documentation does not confirm that the Petitioner was on this show prior to the date of filing in January 2014. 16 Moreover, we have already considered earlier television appearances under the published material criterion, a criterion she meets. Additional exhibits relating to that criterion do not constitute comparable evidence. Finally, the Petitioner once again references letter, in which he requests that we reconsider our decision and affirms that she will serve on board of directors in the future. As stated in our previous decision, solicited letters are generally not

13 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, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 14 1756, Inc. v. USAtt'yGen., 745 F. Supp. 9,15 (D.D.C. 1990). 15 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 16 As stated above, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49.

4

Matter of A-K-B-

comparable to the types of objective evidence otherwise required by the ten criteria. 17 Accordingly, the Petitioner has not supplied persuasive comparable evidence.

D. Summary

The Petitioner has not filed a motion to reopen that is supported by new evidence documenting eligibility as of the date of filing. The new evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has satisfied an additional two criteria. As the record continues to show that the Petitioner meets a single criterion, she has not established the necessary sustained national or international acclaim through extensive evidence. 18

III. CONCLUSION

The motion will be denied 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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met.

ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied.

Cite as Matter of A-K-B-, ID# 18062 (AAO Aug. 29, 2016)

17 According to USC IS policy, general statements that any of the ten objective criteria do not readily apply to the foreign national's occupation are not probative and should be discounted. Similarly, statements that USCIS should accept witness letters as comparable evidence are not persuasive. A petitioner should explain why it has not submitted evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the evidence it has submitted is "comparabl~" to that required under 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3). USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 18 Section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).

5

(b)(6)

MATTER OF A-K-B-

Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office

DATE: FEB.l9, 2016

MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION

PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER

The Petitioner, a "dream expert," seeks classification as an individual "of extraordinary ability" in the field of dream psychology. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. We dismissed her appeal, and subsequently reaffirmed that decision on motion. The matter is now before us on a second motion to reopen. The motion to reopen will be denied.

I. MOTION TO REOPEN

A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The new facts, however, must demonstrate eligibility as of the date of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ), ( 12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm' r 1971). If it is the Petitioner' s position that she has new accomplishments that form the basis of her eligibility, a new petition is the appropriate venue to present those achievements. A motion to reconsider must include 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 material. Compare 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2).

In part three of her Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and the accompanying statement, the Petitioner indicated that she is filing a motion to reopen. She asserts that a September 2, 2015 , letter from

demonstrates that she now meets the criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) relating to participating as the judge of the work of others and performing in a leading or critical role . On motion, the Petitioner also resubmits letters from a licensed clinical psychologist; and , a part-time faculty member at the We had previously considered both letters when we dismissed the Petitioner' s appeal and reaffirmed the dismissal in our motion adjudication.

(b)(6)

Matter of A-K-B-

The Petitioner has not shown that we should grant the instant motion to reopen. Specifically, the evidence does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the exclusive classification at the time she filed the petition in January 2014. As noted in our previous decisions and above, the Petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. She cannot secure a priority date based on the anticipation of future events that might qualify her for a visa classification. 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.")

In his September 2015 letter, which the Petitioner submits for the first time on motion, provides that she is "a Site Administrator for Course Center," and that she "oversees, grades, and judges the work [sic] of students' work." The letter notes that the Petitioner "will help to oversee first Online Research Conference in March 2016, where the attendees will study the state of the art in contemporary dream research." Neither the letter nor any other evidence indicated that the Petitioner had judged others ' work at the time of filing the petition in January 2014. The Petitioner had not asserted that she met the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) when she initially filed her petition, on appeal, or in her first motion to us.

Moreover, conclusory statement is not supported by any evidence or details on the nature of her judging responsibilities, or confirmation that the students are in "the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy a 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). Accordingly, neither letter nor any other documents in the record establishes that the Petitioner met this criterion at the time of filing in January 2014.

On motion, the Petitioner also asserts that she meets the critical and leading role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). affirms that the Petitioner "performs a critical role within

as a Site Administrator for the online course center, which includes dream research methods, lucid dreaming, nightmare treatment, spirituality and dreams, and a variety of other dream-related topics based on books, conference presentations, and peer-reviewed journal papers." Although

notes that the Petitioner's role is "critical," he does not provide specific evidence in support of the conclusory statement. The record lacks information showing that the Petitioner's impact on

is so significant that her role constitutes a critical role for the organization as a whole. As noted in our two previous decisions, going on record without supporting documentation 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).

2

(b)(6)

Matter of A-K-B-

Furthermore, as discussed in our two previous decisions, the Petitioner has not shown that has a distinguished reputation, as required under the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The record lacks evidence relating to this organization reputation or in support of a finding that it has a "distinguished reputation." See Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Unsubstantiated statements do not establish that the Petitioner meets this criterion. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108; Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 at *5.

In addition, as discussed above, the Petitioner must show her eligibility at the time she filed the petition in January 2014. The record does not indicate that she was an site administrator in January 2014. As such, even if her role met the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which as explained above it does not, she would not be eligible for the exclusive classification. The Petitioner may not rely on an event that postdates her filing date to establish her eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. at 160; Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175-76. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she met this criterion at the time of filing in January 2014.

Finally, on motion, the Petitioner maintains that letters from constitute comparable evidence. The record does not support this assertion. The regulation provides that "[i]fthe above standards [8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)] do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4). The Petitioner has not filed any documents indicating that the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not apply to her occupation as a "dream expert." Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated or explained how the three letters are comparable to the objective achievements required under any of the ten criteria.' These letters stated in general terms that the Petitioner is an expert in her field, who has contributed to the field and "the life of many people." We considered letters in our two previous decisions, concluding that they were insufficient to show the Petitioner's eligibility. On motion, the Petitioner has not specifically challenged our findings relating to these letters. In addition, as discussed above,

letter similarly does not prove the Petitioner's eligibility.

General, solicited letters from local colleagues are insufficient to demonstrate a petitioner's eligibility. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0). The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter o.fCaron Int'l, 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. !d. Letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as our decisions have done, evaluate the content of those letters and whether they are corroborated to determine if they support the foreign national's eligibility. See

1 General assertions that the ten objective criteria described in 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) do not readily apply to the foreign national's occupation are not probative. Similarly, assertions that USCIS should accept witness letters as comparable evidence are not persuasive. Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM), ch. 22.2(i)(l )(A) (comparable evidence segment).

3

Matter of A-K-B-

id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding our decision to give minimal weight to vague, solicited letters from colleagues or associates that do not provide details on contributions of major significance in the field); AFM, ch. 22.2(i)(1)(D).

We have considered the materials the Petitioner filed on motion and find that she has not documented a one-time achievement (that is a major, internationally recognized award), or offered sufficient qualifying items that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), or comparable evidence confirming her eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). The Petitioner has not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not demonstrated, through the submission of extensive evidence, the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 2

II. CONCLUSION

The Petitioner has not shown that the motion to reopen should be granted, because she has not stated the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or other documentation. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We have considered the evidence on motion and find that it does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the exclusive classification. Accordingly, the instant motion to reopen will be denied.3

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 denied.

ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied.

Cite as Matter of A-K-B-, ID# 15786 (AAO Feb. 19, 2016)

2 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. 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)(1)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(l), 204(b); 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&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now users, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 3 To the extent that the Petitioner is also seeking a motion to reconsider, she has not stated any valid reason for reconsideration, nor has she sufficiently supported any valid reason for reconsideration with pertinent legal precedent or other legal authority establishing that our August 12, 2015, decision was based on an incorrect application of Jaw or USCIS policy. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Accordingly, had the Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, the motion would be denied.

4

(b)(6)

DATE: AUG 1 2 2015

rN RE: Petitioner: Beneficiary:

FILE#:

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


PETITION RECEIPT#:

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

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD

Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case.

If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5 . Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-2908) within 33 days of the date of this decision. The Form 1-2908 web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO.

Thank you,

~e~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office

REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov

(b)(6)

NON-PRECEDENT DECISION Page 2

DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. We subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. We will reopen the matter on motion and reaffirm our prior decision.

I. Motion to Reopen

The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) informs the public of the filing requirements for a motion and provides, in pertinent part, that a motion must be: "Accompanied by a statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding."

In the instant motion, the petitioner has not submitted a statement indicating if the validity of our March 23, 2015 unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) requires that "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." Regardless, the petitioner has not otherwise shown her eligibility for the petition. Accordingly, we reaffirm our prior decision.

A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 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.F.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.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).

In support of her motion, the petitioner has submitted: (1) a March 30, 2015 letter from , a licensed clinical psychologist; (2) a March 29, 2014 letter from

time faculty, Departments of Psychology and Marriage and Family Therapy, (3) an undated letter from Operations Director,

, partUniversity;

; (4) a July 30, 2012 email from ===----' a' 1n Southern California; ( 5) online printouts from website, ~ ( 6) two partial copies of the petitioner's articles entitled " and '

posted on website, (7) the petitioner's article entitled posted on website; (8) an online printout from a library's

website announcing a workshop by the petitioner; (9) a February 4, 2013 letter from Core Faculty Counseling Psychology, University -

(10) foreign language documents that lack certified English translations; (11) ========', relating to the petitioner's book,

; (12) online printouts relating to the petitioner's app, (13) a May 17, 2013 article by entitled

quotes the petitioner; (14) an online printout from pod cast in 2013; (15) an online printout from the radio show

' that the petitioner as a guest on a

listing the

(b)(6)


petitioner as a guest; ( 16) an October 1 7, 2014 article entitled · posted on

of the petitioner's appearance on a she, as a Dream Expert, meets the § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (v), (vi) and (viii).

that quotes the petitioner; and ( 1 7) a screenshot television show. On motion, the petitioner asserts that

criteria set forth under the regulations at 8 C.F .R.

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 orfields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii).

On motion, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she is a member of ; has an Internet Movie Database (IMDB) profile and presented at the

. The petitioner has not shmvn that she meets this criterion.

First, as discussed in our March 23, 2015 decision, the petitioner has not shovm that requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts, as required by the plain language of the criterion. On motion, the petitioner resubmits an undated letter from and a July 2012 email from In our previous decision, we noted that the submitted evidence does not provide the requirements for membership in The petitioner has not addressed that concern on motion. We reaffirm that neither nor explains what the requirements are to become a member of or assert that recognized national or international experts evaluate the eligibility of prospective members.

On motion, the petitioner also submits online printouts from website, including a picture of the petitioner and other individuals who participated in an conference and the petitioner's biography. None of the newly submitted evidence relates to membership requirements or establishes that the requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. The record does not contain constitution or bylaws setting forth the membership requirements for the organization. As discussed in our previous decision, the petitioner's involvement in the relates to the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which we discuss below. At issue for this criterion, however, is not the petitioner's role for the , but her membership status and whether requires outstanding achievements of its members. The record lacks evidence relating to membership requirements, and lacks evidence showing that "recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields" judge the "outstanding achievements" of members. As such, the petitioner has not shown that her membership meets this criterion.

Second, as discussed in our previous decision, the petitioner has not shown that is an association that accepts members. On motion, the petitioner has not submitted additional evidence relating to her association with the Instead, she states that includes her profile in its database because she appeared on a show. The petitioner further states that the database "can only be added by established TV networks and movie production companies." The petitioner made the same assertions on appeal, which we concluded do not establish that the

(b)(6)


petitioner is a "member" of the Rather, the evidence shows that is an online database that provides information on individuals who have received credit for appearing on television shows, movies and other productions. In this case, the petitioner received credit for her appearance on a December 2013 episode of the television show as a dream analyst. The record, however, lacks evidence showing that the accepts members. In addition, even if the petitioner has shown that she is a member of the she has not shown that reqmres "outstanding achievements" of the individuals whose information that it posts, or that the "outstanding achievements" are judged by "recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields." As such, the petitioner has not shown that her profile meets this criterion. Instead, because it relates to an appearance on this information is relevant to the published material criterion, which the petitioner meets.

Third, on motion, the petitioner asserts that her involvement with the meets this criterion. The petitioner submits two foreign language documents and states that they show the invited her to present at a event and featured her in its magazine. 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." As the record lacks certificated English translations for the documents, the foreign language documents have minimal evidentiary value. In addition, the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that she is a "member" of the as required by the plain language of this criterion, or that the requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. As such, the petitioner has not shown that her involvement with the meets this criterion.

Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of her 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. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 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 class?fication 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).

On motion, the petitioner submits an October 17, 2014 miicle entitled ' which quotes the petitioner's opinions on dream interpretation. This

evidence postdates the filing of the petition. Regardless, we previously concluded in our appellate decision that the petitioner met this criterion. The petitioner appeared on the television show

as a dream analyst in December 2013 and the show was broadcasted on the television channel, which constitutes "major media." Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted published material about her in professional or major trade publications or other major media,

(b)(6)


relating to her work in the field for which classification is sought. The petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). ·

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

On motion, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she has authored released a new version of the

and presented seminars and workshops at the Public Library and conferences. The petitioner has not met this criterion. Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or customers. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 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).

First, the petitioner has not shown what impact her book has had in the field of psychology. On motion, the petitioner submits an online printout from The petitioner states that the printout shows that her book "has been well received not only by the dream psychology community, but also by the general public." The evidence in the record does not support the petitioner's assertion. Neither the printout nor any other evidence in the record establishes how many copies of her 2013 books have been sold. The printout shows that her book has received three reviews and has a five-star aggregate review score. This evidence shows that three reviewers liked the petitioner's book. The limited number of reviews from unidentified individuals, however, does not establish what impact, if any, the book has had on the field of psychology as a whole.

On motion, the petitioner submits two reference letters. The letter from states that the petitioner's book "offers an excellent overview of dream psychology, helping readers gain [a] better understanding of themselves by working with their own dreams, and significantly enhancing their own wellbeing." The letter further states that "[t]hrough her popular books and seminars, [the petitioner] positively impacts the life of many people, providing them with the tools to work with their own dreams" and that her "innovative work in the field of dream psychology has raised the bar for other experts in the field." The letter from states that the petitioner's book was a "best-sell[er]" and that she "is making a positive difference in people's lives with her continuing contributions, and innovative work." 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), G:ffd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). The reference letters in the record are conclusory, and do not include any specific evidence on what the petitioner has done that is either original, such that she is the first person or one of the first people to have done it, or evidence shoVIring that the petitioner's work constitutes contributions of major significance in the field, such that her work fundamentally changed or significantly advanced the field as a whole. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General ofthe United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding our decision to give minimal weight

(b)(6)


to vague, solicited letters from colleagues or associates that do not provide details on contributions of major significance in the field).

Neither letter nor any other evidence in the record includes evidence showing how many copies of her book the petitioner has sold or evidence showing that her book is a best-seller. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter o.f Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)).

Second, the petitioner has not shown that the release of a new version of her app in February 20 15, over a year after she filed her petition in January 2014, establishes that she meets this criterion. As discussed in our previous decision, it is well established that the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). The petitioner cannot secure a priority date based on the anticipation of a future event at a level consistent with contributions of major significance. See Matter ofWing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977); Matter o,[Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (adopting Matter o[Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the proposition that USC IS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition.") As such, the release of her app in March 2014 or the release of a new version ofthe app in February 2015 does not establish that she meets this criterion.

In addition, the evidence in the record does not show that her app has had an impact in the field consistent with a finding of "major significance." states that the new version of the petitioner's app is "particularly encouraging" because "it enables users to help each other, and dream of better answers together." asserts that the app "enables dreamers to connect on a global scale, making a positive impact on people's lives by encouraging the exploration of unconscious patterns and themes embedded in dreams." These reference letters describe the app and its positive attributes, but they do not provide specific evidence showing that the impact of the app on the field of psychology is at a level consistent with a contribution of "major significance" in the field. The record lacks information on how many people in the field have used or been influenced by the app.

Finally, as discussed in our previous decision, the petitioner has not shown what impact her public engagements have had in the field. On motion, the petitioner submits online printouts from Public Library and the . and a February 4, 2013 letter from showing that the petitioner has offered workshops and seminars, and made presentations on dream interpretation. This evidence shows that the petitioner has disseminated her work in the field and to the general public. The evidence does not establish what impact her work has had in the field after its dissemination. To meet this criterion, the petitioner must demonstrate that the impact of her work is such that her work fundamentally changed or significantly advanced the field of psychology. Without evidence of impact, the petitioner has not shown that her public engagements constitute contributions of major significance in the field.

(b)(6)

NON-PRECEDElVT DECISION Page 7

Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of her original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 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).

On motion, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she has authored articles posted on website. As supporting evidence, the petitioner resubmits two incomplete articles entitled and and one complete article entitled ' The petitioner has not met this criterion.

The petitioner has not shown that is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. On appeal, the petitioner asserted that constituted "other media." As stated in our prior decision, to meet this criterion, the petitioner must demonstrate through her evidence that is "other major media." (Emphasis added.) On motion, the petitioner does not address whether is major media. We reaffirm our prior conclusion that the record lacks information relating to or its website, such as its reach, readership or distribution, that shows that it constitutes "other major media."

In addition, the petitioner has not shown that her articles constitute scholarly articles. The petitioner has previously submitted ' which consists of five paragraphs, and "A

· which consists of four paragraphs. On motion, the petitioner submits an incomplete copy of · " showing that it has at least two paragraphs. As noted in our previous decision, the petitioner's articles lack citations, charts or graphs that usually accompany scholarly articles. In addition, the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that her articles have been subjected to peer-review or edited by an editor. Unlike scholarly articles, the petitioner's articles constitute her personal opinions on specific topics that have not been reviewed, verified or substantiated by anyone else in the field. The petitioner submits evidence showing that ' has garnered 131 tweets. The petitioner has not explained the significance of this information or shown that the number of tweets is relevant evidence under this criterion. In the alternative, the petitioner has not demonstrated that other experts in the field consider her articles scholarly, such as but not limited to, citation of her articles in their own scholarly work. The petitioner's statement on motion does not discuss what makes her articles scholarly. Accordingly, the petitioner has not shown that her articles constitute scholarly articles.

Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of her authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).

(b)(6)


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 she meets this criterion because she has played critical roles for the She states that she was a member of the organizing committee for the

in 2011 and has held two research seminars at conferences. As supporting evidence, the petitioner resubmits an undated letter from and a July 2012 email from

The petitioner had previously submitted the same evidence in support of her petition. The petitioner has not met this criterion.

First, as discussed in our previous decision, undated email does not establish that the petitioner has performed either a leading or critical role for the letter states that the petitioner "presented an outstanding symposium" at the

and that the presentation was well received. further states that petitioner "has an extraordinary ability to work with people' s dreams, and is also a very inspiring dream speaker." The letter does not provide information on the petitioner's association with the other than being one of its presenters at its regional conference. The letter does not discuss the petitioner's title or her duties in the which relate to whether the petitioner has performed a leading role for the . The letter also does not discuss the petitioner' s impact in the as a whole, which relates to whether the petitioner has performed a critical role for the As such, the letter does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion.

Second, we considered email in our previous decision, and concluded that the email did not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. As noted, although states in her email that the petitioner had "an active part" in the 2011 conference's organizing committee, she does not provide any specific information relating to the petitioner's duties, title or impact on the organizing committee. primarily conclusory assertions provide insufficient detail. See 17 56, Inc., 7 45 F. Supp. at 17. Moreover, the petitioner has not shown that the organization committee constitutes an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. As such, the email does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion.

Third, although the record shows that the petitioner has presented at the the petitioner has not shown that being one of the 20 presenters

at a regional conference constitutes her performing either a leading or a critical role for the or any other organization. On motion, the petitioner asserts that she "has held two major research seminars at conferences." She submits online printouts from website that provide information on the petitioner's presentation and biographic information. None of the online printouts, however, establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. As discussed in our previous decision, the petitioner has not presented evidence showing that her title and duties within the are indicative of her leading role, or evidence showing that her impact on the is indicative of her critical role. In addition, the record lacks evidence show-ing that the has a distinguished reputation.

(b)(6)


Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence that she has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).

If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary 's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the bene_ficiary 's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4).

On motion, the petitioner asserts that her status as a parent of a U.S. citizen child constitutes qualifying comparable. As discussed in our previous decision, to show the applicability of this regulation, the petitioner must explain how the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to her occupation, specify what evidence in the record constitutes comparable evidence, and describe how the evidence is comparable to the evidence required under the ten criteria. The petitioner has not established how her parental status relates or is comparable to any of the ten criteria under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(i)-(x). When reviewing the petitioner' s motion, we must follow the guidelines set forth in the Act, regulations and case law, which do not allow us to consider the petitioner's parental status as relevant to whether she enjoys sustained national or international acclaim in her field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the ten criteria do not readily apply to her occupation or shown that she has submitted evidence that is comparable to that required under the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).

II. Conclusion

In most administrative immigration proceedings, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is eligible for the benefit sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. ld. at 376. In this case, the petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that she. is eligible for the exclusive classification sought.

Although the petitioner has submitted new evidence in support of a motion to reopen, she has not shown that she meets the eligibility for the classification sought. Therefore, we affirm our previous decision denying her petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).

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 petition remains denied.

ORDER: The motion is granted, our March 23 , 2015 decision is affirmed, and the petition remains denied.

(b)(6)

'

DATE: MAR 2 3 2015

IN RE: Petitioner: Beneficiary:

Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER

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


FILE:

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

Thanky� �\ r-

Ron Rosenberg Chief, Administrative Appeals Office

www.uscis.gov

(b)(6)


DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed.

According to the initial filing, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability as a " " in the field of ,. " pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), which makes visas available to petitioners who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act limits this classification to petitioners with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. The director concluded that the petitioner's field is psychology, and the petitioner does not contest that conclusion on appeal. Psychology falls under the sciences. _ ' is an area within the larger field of psychology, and is not a separate, distinct or standalone field. We therefore will not narrow the petitioner's field to " ." See Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1229-30 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (finding that the beneficiary's field was medical science rather than nephrology). The director determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria.

On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets the criteria under the regulations at 8 C.P.R.

§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (v), (vi), and (viii). She further asserts that she has submitted comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) or comparable evidence. As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who is at the very top in the field of endeavor, and that she has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal.

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

(b)(6)

Page3 NON-PRECEDENT DECISION

by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation,

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

(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States.

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 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of

. endeavor. Id.; 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).

The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate her sustained acclaim and the recognition of her achievements in the field through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).

The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Rijal v.

USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); 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").

(b)(6)


II. ANALYSIS

A. Evidentiary Criteria 1

Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner, as initial evidence, may present evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, the petitioner has not asserted or shown through her evidence that she is the recipient of a major, internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, as initial evidence, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements.

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).

On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she is a member of the 1 and a member of the - - .

'---------- . The petitioner has not shown that she meets this criterion

First, she has not shown that requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts, as required by the plain language of the criterion. On appeal, the petitioner focuses on her role for under this criterion. We will consider the petitioner's role for below under the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). At i'ssue for this criterion, however, is not the petitioner's role for , but her membership status and whether requires outstanding achievements of its members. To establish her membership in the petitioner has submitted an undated letter from

Operations Director, stating that the petitioner is a professional member of the association. The petitioner has also submitted an online printout from dreamtalk.hypermart.net, entitled ' ." The petitioner, however, has not submitted any evidence showing the requirements for professional membership, such as the bylaws for the association. Although the undated letter from Mr. discusses the petitioner's work and experience, it does not discuss : membership requirements. The record also lacks evidence showing that "recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields" judge the "outstanding achievements" of members.

Second, the petitioner has not shown that is an association that accepts members. Rather, the evidence, and the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), shows that

that provides information on individuals who have received credit for appearing in television shows, movies and other productions. In this case, the petitioner received

1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner claims to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence.

(b)(6)

NON-PRECEDENT DECISION PageS

credit for her appearance on a episode of the television show as a dream analyst. Although the petitioner states that she is a member of _ she has not presented evidence from or any other source showing that the inclusion of her information in an online database is evidence of her membership in an association. 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)). Moreover, even if the petitioner has shown that she is a member of she has not shown that requires "outstanding achievements" of the individuals whose information that it posts, or that the "outstanding achievements" are judged by "recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields." On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she is "in the celebrity category, [and that her profile] can only be created by ' The petitioner has not explained what she means by "the celebrity category" or shown through her evidence that individuals in the "celebrity category" have accomplished "outstanding achievements," as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts in their disciplines or fields.

Finally, in her initial filing and her RFE response, the petitioner asserted that her membership in the and constituted

evidence of her meeting this criterion. On appeal, however, the petitioner has not continued to assert that her membership in these organizations or establishments constitutes evidynce that she meets this criterion. As she did not timely raise these issues on appeal, the petitioner has abandoned these issues. Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011).

Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted documentation of her 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. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).

The director concluded in his decision that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record supports this conclusion. Specifically, the petitioner has submitted evidence showing that in

she appeared on the television show as a dream analyst and that the show was broadcasted on the television channel, which constitutes "major media." Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted published material about her in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to her work in the field for which classification is sought. The petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).

(b)(6)


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

On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she has authored which the petitioner states is a

"highly popular and influential book." In addition, the petitioner asserts that her establishes that she meets this criterion. The evidence in the record does

not establish that the petitioner has met this criterion.

First, the petitioner has not shown what impact her book has had in the field of psychology. According to the petitioner's statement initially filed in support of her petition, her book

"provides significant contributions to the field of dream interpretation psychology" and "has been well received not only by the dream psychology community, but also by the general public." In the same statement, the petitioner asserts that her "advances and research findings in the field of have consistently been well-received and cited by eminent psychologists and well known media personalities." The petitioner's assertions, however, are not supported by evidence in the record. 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. at 165. Although the petitioner has submitted evidence of her 2013 book signing event, she has submitted no evidence relating to the impact of her book in the field, such as evidence that others in the field have cited her book or relied on her book in their own research or publication. Indeed, none of the reference letters in the record specifically mention the petitioner's book or its impact in the field. The record also lacks any review, from either experts or the general public, of the petitioner's book. The petitioner has not shown what impact, if any, her book has had in the field. Without evidence of impact, the petitioner has not shown that her book constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field.

Second, the petitioner has not shown what impact her public engagements have had in the field. Although the record includes attributed quotations that praise the petitioner's work as a dream analyst, speaker and presenter, the quotations do not establish the petitioner's impact in the field is consistent with contributions of major significance in the field. Initially, the quotations have minimal evidentiary value, because the petitioner has not shown their source(s). The petitioner has submitted a paragraph that praises the petitioner's work in dream psychology. The quotation is attributed to Dr. , Department Chair, Counseling Psychology,

. The petitioner has also submitted a paragraph attributed to of the California, praising the petitioner's speaking engagement at the library.

Neither of these two documents, however, is dated, signed, or appears on official letterhead. These documents, thus, have minimal evidentiary value.

Third, the reference letters in the record do not establish that the petitioner has met this criterion. The record includes a January 5, 2010 reference letter from , Ph.D., who was the petitioner's professor at Dr. states that the petitioner ranks in the top five percent of all the students she has taught or supervised. Dr. concludes: "I recommend

(b)(6)


[the petitioner] with the highest confidence and enthusiasm. She is an excellent candidate for a clinical training position, and she will be a tremendous asset to any organization with which she is affiliated." The letter, which appears to be an employment recommendation letter, does not discuss the petitioner's contributions in the field or establish that the petitioner has done anything in the field that constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field, as required under the plain language of the criterion.

The evidence also includes a July 30, 2012 email from who is a" " According to Ms. email, the petitioner is "very active in the

dreaming community. She holds regular workshops and engages with dreamers around the world with her dream blogs, website and social media outlets." The petitioner has submitted evidence of her appearance on the television show and radio shows

and the Theses engagements show that the petitioner has been disseminating her ideas to the public and in the field. They do not, however, show thatthe petitioner has had any impact in the field after the dissemination. Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or customers. Instead, the petitioner must show her impact in the field as a whole that rises to the level of contributions of major significance. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (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).

Finally, the petitioner has not shown that we may consider her development of an app as evidence that she meets this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner states that she released an app in March 2014, after she filed the petition in January 2014. In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted online printouts about the app that show she originally released version 1.0 on March 11, 2014, and it costs $0.99 to download. It is well established that the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). In other words, the petitioner cannot secure a priority date based on the anticipation of a future event 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 USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition.") As such, her development of the app does not establish that she meets this criterion. In addition, she has submitted no evidence showing the impact of her app in the field, or establishing that the impact of the app rises to the level of a contribution of major significance in the field.

Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of her original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).

(b)(6)


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

On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she authored articles that are published in· She further asserts that' magazine, as well as their [sic] social media outlets, classifies as 'other media."' The petitioner has not shown that she meets this criterion.

First, the criterion states that the petitioner's work must be published in a qualifying publication, or "other major media." As such, even if constitutes "other media," as the petitioner asserts, she must also demonstrate through her evidence that is "other major media." (Emphasis added.) The petitioner has not submitted any information relating to the publication or website, such as reach, readership or distribution, that shows that it constitutes "other major media."

Second, the petitioner has not shown that her articles constitute scholarly articles. The petitioner has submitted evidence of her authorship of a article entitled '

." The article consists offive paragraphs. The record also includes an article entitled' ' that consists of four paragraphs. These articles lack citations, charts or

graphs that usually accompany scholarly articles. In addition, the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that her articles have been subjected to peer-review or edited by an editor. Unlike scholarly articles, the petitioner's articles constitute her personal opinions on specific topics that have not been reviewed, verified or substantiated by anyone else in the field. In the alternative, the petitioner has not demonstrated that other experts in the field consider her articles scholarly, such as but not limited to, treatment of her articles in their own scholarly work. The petitioner thus has not shown that her articles constitute scholarly articles.

Third, the petitioner has not shown that her articles " " " "

and " :" have been published. The evidence shows that the petitioner posted " " in , but does not show the website or forum on which the petitioner posted the article. The evidence relating to the remaining two articles does not indicate that either has been published. As such, the petitioner has not shown that these articles have been published, or have been published in professional or major trade publications or other major media.

On appeal, the petitioner asserts that since she filed her petition, · has published another article that she authored. She does not specify the title of the article or submit evidence showing that

published the article. In addition, as noted, the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N

Dec. at 49, and cannot secure a priority date based on the anticipation of future publications. See Matter ofWing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. at 160; Matter oflzummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175-76.

Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of her authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).

(b)(6)


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).

On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because of her role in the The petitioner states that she was part of the organizing committee for the

and was part of a research panel at the . The petitioner further asserts that the has a distinguished

reputation. The evidence in the record does not support the petitioner's assertions.

To establish that she meets this criterion, the petitioner must show she has performed in a leading or critical role for qualifying organizations or establishments. A leading role should be evident based not only on the petitioner's title but her duties associated with the position. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the organization or establishment as a whole. To show her role in an organization or establishment, the petitioner may submit an organizational chart demonstrating how her role fits within the hierarchy of the organization or establishment.

The petitioner has submitted an email from Ms. stating that the petitioner "was an active part of the organizing committee for the '

and "presented a symposium at this conference." The petitioner has submitted a dpcument entitled " " that lists her as one of 20 the presenters at the conference. Although Ms. states that the petitioner had "an active part" in the conference's organizing committee, she does not provide any specific information relating to the petitioner's duties, title or impact on the organizing committee. 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. at 165. In addition, 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). The undated letter from Mr. makes no mention of the petitioner's participation in the organizing committee. Moreover, the petitioner has not shown that the organization committee constitutes an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation.

The record includes evidence that the petitioner has presented at the The petitioner, however, has not shown that being one of 20

presenters at a regional conference constitutes her performing either a leading or a critical role for the or any other organization. The petitioner has not presented evidence showing that her title and duties within are indicative of her leading role, or evidence showing that her impact on

is indicative of her critical role. Moreover, although the petitioner asserts on appeal that has a distinguished reputation, the petitioner has submitted no evidence in support of her assertion as required. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations 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.

(b)(6)


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., 745 F. Supp. at 17.

The record includes evidence that in January 2014, the petitioner's presentation entitled " ' was accepted for the then scheduled for

As noted, the petitioner must establish her eligibility at the time she filed the petition. As the petitioner filed her petition in January 2014, she may not rely on an event that postdates her filing date to establish her eligibility. See 8 C.P.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. In addition, as discussed, the petitioner has not shown that being a presenter at an conference is indicative of her leading or critical role for the organization. The petitioner has also submitted insufficient evidence relating to the reputation, or distinguished reputation, of or the : conference.

Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence that she has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii).

If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)( 4).

For the first time in this proceeding, the petitioner asserts on appeal that "comparable evidence has been submitted under each category." The petitioner, however, does not explain how the regulatory criteria do not readily apply to her occupation or specify what evidence in the record constitutes comparable evidence, or how the evidence is comparable to the evidence required under the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner's statement on appeal that she has presented "comparable evidence" that establishes her eligibility, without providing any legal support or explanation, does not require us to conduct a full analysis of this issue. Cf Desravines v. United States Att y Gen., No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009). The petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating that the criteria do not readily apply to her occupation. Thus, she may not rely on comparable evidence. Further, the petitioner has not demonstrated that she has submitted evidence that is comparable to that required under the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Evidence that relates to the criteria but does not meet them is not necessarily comparable to evidence that does meet one or more of the criteria.

B. Summary

In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner provided the following statement: "Plea for the consideration of humane circumstances to be incorporated in the case," because the petitioner is the mother of a United States Citizen daughter born in. When reviewing the petitioner's appeal, we must follow the guidelines set forth in the Act, relevant regulations and case law; which do not allow us to consider "humane circumstances." In addition, the record includes a number of reference letters that contain conclusory statements of the petitioner's acclaim, without providing

(b)(6)


specific information or evidence in support of the conclusory statements. For example, Mr. states that the petitioner "

" In a July 30, 2012 email, Ms. . states that the petitioner "is well regarded in our field and an inspiration to her clients." These conclusory statements do not establish the petitioner's eligibility. We need not accept primarily conclusory assertions that are unsubstantiated

·by evidence in the record. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.C. Dist. 1990).

For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not submitted the requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria.

III. CONCLUSION

The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of his or her 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 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.

§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence on which the petitioner relies on appeal in the aggregate, including an appearance on a television show, podcasts, and public engagement events, and publication of a book and articles of undocumented influence, supports a finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated, through the submission of extensive evidence, the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 2

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.

2 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See So!tane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 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)(1)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); 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&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).

(b)(6)

to dream the impossible dream as a dream expert, analyst, psychologist

News & Politics