~DtJitltk., - uscis

--
Page 31
encouraged her to participate
addressed to the beneficiary
who stated:
We are delighted that you have accepted a leadership positIOn in the Greater
Miami Chapter of the [NAWBOj, as International Affairs & Communication
Chairperson. With your expertise in this arena. your participation in our local
chapter and eventually at the regional and national level will be most welcomed
and appreciated.
Finally. the petitioner submitted a screenshot from www.nawbomiami.org that listed the
beneficiary for the International section within the Greater Miami NA WBO. Based on the
submitted documentary evidence, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary performed
in a leading or critical role for NA WBO, let alone for the Greater Miami NA WBO. Clearly,
when compared to the President of NA WBO, the beneficiary's role in the
International section of the Greater NA WBO is in a far less role. Even within the Greater Miami
NA WBO, the petitioner is in a subordinate role when compared to that of who is
president. In fact, the screenshot lists 10 sections/positions. The petitioner failed to submit any
documentary evidence comparing the roles of the beneficiary to the other nine sections, so as to
establish that the beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role. Finally, while the petitioner
submitted a screenshot from www.nawbomiami.org regarding a brief history of NA WBO, the
petitioner failed to submit any independent, objective evidence establishing that NA WBO has a
distinguished reputation.
Regarding SSF, the petitioner submitted a business card for the beneficiary listing her as "Board
Advisory." In addition, the petitioner submitted a document regarding the SSF Art Auction in
which it acknowledged the beneficiary along with 41 other individuals and organizations for
their contributions to the auction. Moreover, the petitioner submitted the previously discussed
letter from who indicated that he "selected [the beneficiary J - without any doubt - for
developing the Fundraising Campaign for the project." The petitioner failed to submit any
documentary evidence reflecting the roles of the beneficiary as a "Board Advisory," so as to
demonstrate that she performed in a leading or critical role. Moreover, the AAO is not
persuaded that developing a one-time fundraising campaign for a single project is reflective of a
leading or critical as a whole to SSF. As demonstrated the screenshot from SSP s website
submitted by the petitioner, It appears that
the beneficiary is in a subordinate role to that of a leading or
critical role. Finally, the petitioner failed to submit any independent, objective evidence
demonstrating that SSF has a distinguished reputation. While it appears that SSF is a charitable
organization dedicated to underprivileged children, the AAO cannot presume that every nonprofit
organization has a distinguished reputation. The petitioner failed to submit, for example,
documentary evidence distinguishing SSF for other charitable organizations, so as to establish
that it has a distinguished reputation pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(viii).