WASHINGTON: A U.S. court has ruled that the Bush administration improperly rejected a prominent Turkish religious leader’s application toward permanent residence in the United States and ordered the government to reverse the decision.
Fethullah Gulen, a Sufi scholar and educator with millions of followers across Turkey and parts of Central Asia, has been living in the United States since 1999. U.S. immigration authorities rejected his application to be classified as “an alien of extraordinary ability,” a step that would have facilitated his permanent residence.
A federal court ruled Wednesday that the decision was improper, according to court documents obtained by The Associated Press that have not yet been made public. Immigration officials had argued that Gulen did not meet the qualification of extraordinary ability in his field “demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation.”
Gulen is one of Turkey’s most influential intellectuals, a scholar and preacher of Sufism, a mystical form of Islam. His followers run schools in dozens of countries. In Turkey, they administer hundreds of schools, as well as six universities and a various media organizations. His media network reaches millions daily.
Gulen is revered by many but viewed with suspicion by somein the 99 percent Muslim country where secularism is enshrined in the constitution and religion has traditionally been firmly excluded from politics.
In 2006, a Turkish court acquitted him of trying to overturn Turkey’s secular regime. Prosecutors had accused him of trying to create an Islamic groundswell and of “brainwashing” school children.
Gulen’s lawyer, H. Ronald Klasko, said he did not understand the U.S. government’s argument that he did not meet the requirements.
“For whatever reason, the government has decided to fight his application,” he said. “Their arguments were very strange to me.”
The U.S. court’s decision means that Gulen can now apply for permanent residence under a more favorable category. The judge scheduled another hearing for next month and could order the government to decide on Gulen’s residency application. The government could also appeal Wednesday’s ruling.
U.S. officials declined to comment on the decision Thursday.
“We have just received the judgment and have forwarded it to the appropriate Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security officials for their review,” said Patty Hartman, a spokeswoman for federal prosecutors in Philadelphia, where the case was heard.
=============
From: ergun@cox.net [mailto:ergun@cox.net]
Subject: American court records show one thing clearly: Fethullah Gulen is a fraud!
Please read and weep!
These are unbiased records of an American court!
This relates to Gulen’s visa application which was first denied and then overturned on appeal. What is interesting is how Gulen’s empire was dissected (see below) by THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA based on evidence submitted by Gulen to the court in support of his application and which evidence was shown by the court to be a fraud and sham. He is nothing but a charismatic leader fawned over and supported by wealthy donors in an never ending cycle of empty Gulen worship and promotion. He has “Armenianized” his accomplishments! This proper court analysis of Gulen’s empire shows Gulen’s true colors – a fraud!
Here are telling comment from the court:
“The record further shows that much of the “acclaim” that plaintiff claims to have achieved has been sponsored and financed by plaintiff’s own movement.”
“A number of the letters submitted in support of plaintiff’s petition reference schools established or founded by plaintiff. These references appear to be mistaken; there is no evidence that plaintiff played any direct role in establishing any schools.”
“The evidence submitted by plaintiff, when carefully examined, reveals that he is not a scholar and his work is not the subject of serious scholarship. He is a religious and political figure attempting to buy academic prestige by paying people to write papers about him.”
“Plaintiff goes on to state that w[a]cademics at major universities focus on his work in religious tolerance and education and have made Mr. Gulen’s work the subject of entire courses.” PI. Mem., at 56. This statement is completely unsupported by any evidence. Plaintiff can point to no entire courses devoted to his work; nor has he identified any “major universities” where his work is the subject of entire courses.”
“…but it should be noted that his statement, at page 47 of his memorandum, that his receipt of the UNESCO award “was another occasion in which Mr. Gulen met with his Holiness Pope John Paul II,” is patently untrue. The award was given in October 2005. Pope John Paul II died April 2, 2005.”
“Plaintiff has never performed scholarly research in the field of education. He has never advised other academics in the field of education. And consulting on conferences about his own work is essentially continuing to promote himself and his movement by paying academics to write papers about him.”
These comments are not by Gulen’s opponents or critics but by a disinterested party – the US District Court!
Ergun Kirlikovali
This is the html version of the file .
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: us district court eastern pennsylvania fethullah gulen
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: district
——————————————————————————–
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FETULLAH GULEN, :
Plaintiff
No. 07-CV-2148
V. !
Judge Dalzell
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,
Defendants
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Fetullah Gulen asks this Court to find that
the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’
final action on his application for a preference visa as an
alien of extraordinary ability in the field of education was
arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial
evidence. Because the evidence of record, all supplied by
plaintiff, makes it very clear that plaintiff does not meet
the statutory requirements, his motion for summary judgment
should be denied.
Argument
As explained in Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Deft. Mem.), summary
judgment is appropriate where the moving party, through
affidavits, depositions, admissions, and answers to
interrogatories, demonstrates that there is no genuine issue
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 1 of 26
as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Jalil v. Advel Corp., 873 F.2d
701, 706 (3d Cir. 1989); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Because
this case arises under the Administrative Procedures Act,
plaintiff must show that there is no issue of material fact
and that the agency action was arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion, contrary to law, or unsupported by
substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 706; Camphill Soltane v.
U.S. Department of Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 148 {3d Cir.
2004). Substantial evidence in this context is “more than a
mere scintilla” but “something less than the weight of the
evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent
conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an
administrative agency’s findings from being supported by
substantial evidence.” Port Norris Express Co.. Inc. v.
Interstate Commerce Commission, et al., 697 F.2d 497, 502
(3d Cir. 1982). The nonmoving party (here, the government)
can defeat summary judgment by identifying substantial
evidence of record which supports the agency’s decision.
As set forth in Defendants’ Memorandum, the term
“extraordinary ability” means a level of expertise
indicating that the individual is one of the small
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 2 of 26
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); Yasar v. DHS. 2006 WL
778623, *1 (S.D.Tex.) (“This type of visa … is the most
preferential classification available for immigrants who are
considered ‘priority workers,’ and so it is reserved for
aliens whose credentials and accomplishments place them at
the very top of their field.”) To establish that he is an
alien of extraordinary ability in one of the designated
fields, a petitioner must show that he has achieved
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top
level. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). To prevail on his motion
for summary judgment, then, plaintiff must show that the
undisputed facts of record establish that he has achieved a
level of expertise in the field of education which places
him at the very top of the field of education, and that the
agency’s decision to the contrary was arbitrary, capricious,
unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law.
In this case, the record contains facts which suggest
that plaintiff has made contributions to the field of
education by advocating the establishment of schools in
Turkey and elsewhere, and the agency has acknowledged that.
See A.R. 00010-00011 (AAO decision). However, the record
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 3 of 26
also contains overwhelming evidence that plaintiff is not an
expert in the field of education, is not an educator, and is
certainly not one of a small percentage of experts in the
field of education who have risen to the very top of that
field. Further, the record contains overwhelming evidence
that plaintiff is primarily the leader of a large and
influential religious and political movement with immense
commercial holdings. The record further shows that much of
the “acclaim” that plaintiff claims to have achieved has
been sponsored and financed by plaintiff’s own movement. It
is the government’s position that the evidence of record
permits only one conclusion: that plaintiff has failed to
meet the requirements of an alien of extraordinary ability
in the field of education.
In his Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Pi. Mem.), plaintiff has
attempted to reframe the issue for this Court as whether
plaintiff is involved in education, and whether he has
achieved sustained international acclaim. The difficulty
for plaintiff is that the statute requires that he show that
he has achieved sustained national or international acclaim
in the field of education and that he has attained a level
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 4 of 26
of expertise that places him at the very top of the field of
education. His attainment of international acclaim in the
field of religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue is
irrelevant. Similarly, whether religious scholars recognize
him as a leader in the field of religious tolerance and
interfaith dialogue is irrelevant. Religious tolerance and
interfaith dialogue are not fields for which Congress has
granted visa preferences.
Two analogies illustrate the difference. The
industrialist Andrew Carnegie gave millions of dollars to
establish libraries and colleges all over the United States.
This would not make Andrew Carnegie a person of
extraordinary ability in the field of education if he were
alive today; he would still be an industrialist. Scholars
all over the world study the work of Albert Einstein and
recognize him as a leader in the field of physics. If he
were alive today he would certainly be a person of
extraordinary ability in the field of science, but he would
not be a person of extraordinary ability in the field of
education. Plaintiff is a leader in the fields of religious
tolerance and interfaith dialogue; the fact that he supports
education and his work is studied by educators does not
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 5 of 26
convert him into a leader in the field of education.
At page 39 of his Memorandum, plaintiff argues that
because most universities “show subject matter disciplines
organized as departments, such as … theology …. the
field of education is broad and encompasses many fields of
studies, including theology.” This argument makes the
statutory limitation of aliens of extraordinary ability to
the fields of science, arts, education, business and
athletics meaningless. If every discipline taught in
universities were encompassed in the field of education,
there would be no reason for Congress to have singled out
science, arts, business and athletics, since most
universities have departments in all those fields. It could
have simply provided visa preferences for aliens of
extraordinary ability in education. It did not do so,
however; it set forth specific fields to which the visa
preference applies. The fact that theology is a legitimate
field of study at the university level does not make
theologians into experts in the field of education.
In his Memorandum, plaintiff sets up various straw
arguments and shoots them down. First, he states that
“Defendants’ arbitrary decision that Plaintiff can have only
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 6 of 26
one occupation, either clergy or education, is contrary to
established binding precedent.” PI. Mem., at 37. Defendants
made no such decision. Defendants found first that
plaintiff applied for the visa preference as a clergyman.
A.R. 00002; see also A.R. 00243-245 (plaintiff’s 1-140
petition, which identifies plaintiff as a clergyman and
makes no mention of education). Defendants did not
foreclose the possibility that religious leaders could be
persons of extraordinary ability in the field of education:
We do not contest that certain religious figures,
such as the Pope, have previously engaged in
educational activities or, as noted by Professor
Esposito, that religious organizations have
operated institutions of learning. These examples
of religious leaders or institutions promoting or
providing education do not establish that
religious occupations fall within the field of
education.
A.R. at 00005. The AAO concluded that plaintiff had not
established that his field of expertise fell within the
sciences, arts, education, business or athletics. The AAO
did not conclude that no religious figure could so qualify.
Similarly, plaintiff asserts that defendants
“arbitrarily concluded that Plaintiff can have only one
occupation or area of expertise.” PI. Mem., at 38. This is
not an accurate characterization of the AAO’s decision.
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 7 of 26
Defendants examined the evidence submitted by plaintiff in
depth, including both evidence of his religious activities
and evidence of his role in educational activities, and
concluded that he had not established that he is an alien of
extraordinary ability in the field of education or that he
intends to continue working in the field of education.
A.R. 00014.
Plaintiff asserts that he has produced substantial
evidence of his alleged expertise in the field of education,
but he points to very little actual evidence. He states
that he has expertise in the field of education “because he
has developed methods of teaching that incorporate religious
tolerance into educational institutions” (PI. Mem., at 40),
but he nowhere identifies those methods. He claims he
“focuses on teaching religious tolerance to children at a
young age as part of their education” (id.), but he presents
no evidence to support this claim. None of his writings set
forth curricula or teaching methodology; none of his
writings are addressed to children; he has presented no
evidence that he himself teaches children, or teaches people
who teach children. He claims his work is used by “hundreds
of schools based on Plaintiff’s methodologies” (.id.), but he
8
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 8 of 26
nowhere identifies or describes those methodologies.1
Plaintiff argues that “entire conferences have been
held focusing on his scholarly work, including his work in
the field of education.” Pi. Mem., at 43. As an example,
he cites a conference which he claims “was organized by the
British government (House of Lords),” among others. See PI
Mem., at 43, 51, 62. The evidence does not support this
assertion. The Proceedings of that conference were
submitted by plaintiff in support of his application, and
copies of relevant portions are attached hereto as Exhibit
A. The House of Lords is listed under the somewhat
misleading heading “Organisers & Venues,” and the materials
indicate that one of the sessions was held at the House of
Lords, but there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that
either the British government or the House of Lords in any
way endorsed, sponsored or organized this conference.
Ex. A, at 00001-00002.2
1 “Methodology” is defined as “[t]he system of
principles, procedures, and practices applied to a
particular branch of knowledge,” or “[t]he branch of logic
dealing with the general principles of the formation of
knowledge.” Webster’s II New Riverside University
Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Co. 1988, at 747.
2 The conference web site, www.qulenconference.ora.uk
(accessed June 12, 2008), lists Parliament under the heading
“Venues,” but lists no governmental entity under the heading
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 9 of 26
An examination of the Proceedings reveals that none of
the presenters is an expert in the field of education. Ex.
A, at 00003-00051. Most of the presenters are students or
professors of religion or political science; several of them
are associated with the Gulen movement.3
The papers presented at the conference reveal that the
Gulen movement is primarily religious and political, not
educational. For example, Mustafa Akyol, in his paper “What
Made the Gulen Movement Possible,” states:
The line of reasoning that Gulen articulates – the
argument for an Islam which demands a liberal
democratic, not Islamic, state – also explains the
remarkable alliance in today’s Turkey between
Muslim conservatives, and especially the Gulen
movement, and the secular liberals. Their
coalition is in favour of the EU bid and
democratization, whereas the nationalist front –
which includes die-hard secular Kemalists, ultraright
wing Turkish nationalists, and hardliner
Islamists – abhors both of those objectives. It
is no accident the daily Zaman and its English
language sister publication, Today’s Zaman – which
both belong to the Gulen movement – hosts [sic]
many liberal columnists.
“Organisers.”
3 For example, Y. Alp Aslandogan is editor of The
Fountain magazine and vice-president of the Institute of
Interfaith Dialog, both Gulen movement associated
organizations. Ex. A at 00022, 00050. Muharamed Cetin is
president of the movement’s Institute of Interfaith Dialog
and co-founder and former editor of The Fountain. Ex. A at
00026. Dogan Koc is co-founder and secretary of the
Institute of Interfaith Dialog. Ex. A at 00040.
10
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 10 of 26
Ex. A at 00053.
In his paper “The Fethullah Gulen Movement as a
Transnational Phenomenon,” Bill Park describes the
movement’s use of education as a way to “Islamize” society:
Gulen propagates a kind of ‘educational Islamism’
as opposed to a ‘political Islamism’ ….
Through the internalized spiritual transformation
of individuals will come a wider social
transformation and, at least in Islamic societies
(including Turkey) in which Gulen institutions
operate, a (re-) ‘Islamisation’ of modernity.
Thus, politics in Turkey and perhaps in other
Islamic societies in which the movement operates
should be ‘Islamized’ only via a bottom-up process
and indirectly, in which people and state are
reunited in a kind of organic way, through a
shared attachment to and internalization of faith.
In this sense, the Gulen movement’s mission in the
Islamic societies in which it operates can be said
to be a political project, but one that aspires to
achieve its goals indirectly.
Ex. A at 00055 (citation omitted).
The Conference Proceedings also reveal that the Gulen
movement involves a great deal more than inspiring followers
to establish schools. In “Funding Gulen-Inspired Good
Works: Demonstrating and Generating Commitment to the
Movement,” Helen Rose Ebaugh and Dogan Koc state:
The projects sponsored by Gulen-inspired followers
today number in the thousands, span international
borders and are costly in terms of human and
financial capital. These initiatives include over
2000 schools and seven universities in more than
ninety countries in five continents, two modern
11
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 11 of 26
hospitals, the Zaman newspaper (now in both a
Turkish and English edition), a television channel
(Samanyolu), a radio channel (Burc FM), CHA (a
major Turkish news agency), Aksiyon (a leading
weekly news magazine), national and international
Gulen conferences, Ramadan interfaith dinners,
interfaith dialog trips to Turkey from countries
around the globe and the many programs sponsored
by the Journalists and Writers Foundation. In
addition, the Isik insurance company and Bank
Asya, an Islamic bank, are affiliated with the
Gulen community.
Ex. A at 00057 (citations omitted).
There are several interesting aspects to the abovequoted
passage. First, it is important to note that the
authors refer to schools “sponsored by Gulen-inspired
followers,” not established or sponsored by plaintiff.4 Of
equal importance, the passage refers to the movement’s
sponsorship of “national and international Gulen
conferences.” This evidence is consistent with the contents
of the radio interview quoted at length in defendants’
memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment,
and suggests that the academic conferences plaintiff relies
on to support his claim that he is recognized as a scholar
4 A number of the letters submitted in support of
plaintiff’s petition reference schools established or
founded by plaintiff. See A.R. 00031-00037, 01082-01165.
These references appear to be mistaken; there is no evidence
that plaintiff played any direct role in establishing any
schools.
12
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 12 of 26
are in fact organized and paid for by the Gulen movement,
rather than by independent academics. The above passage
also describes various financial and insurance companies and
media outlets as inspired by or affiliated with the Gulen
movement.5
The Ebaugh-Koc paper also purports to explore the
sources of funding for the Gulen movement’s projects, but in
fact it merely presents a series of unattributed anecdotes.
The authors explain the need for examining the issue of
finances:
Questions regarding the financing of these
numerous and expensive projects are periodically
raised by both critics of the Gulen Movement and
newcomers to the movement who are invited to Gulen
related events. Because of the large amounts of
money involved in these projects, on occasion
people have raised the possibility of a collusion
between the movement and various governments,
especially Saudi Arabia and/or Iran, and including
the Turkish government. There have even been
suspicions that the American CIA may be a
financial partner behind the projects.
Ex. A 00057 (citation omitted). Despite this explanation of
their purpose, the authors made no systematic study of the
5 The assertion that the Gulen movement has sponsored
or inspired over 2000 schools and seven universities is not
supported by any facts of record and does not appear
consistent with plaintiff’s claim that his followers have
established more than 600 educational institutions.
PI.Mem., at 36.
13
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 13 of 26
sources, or even amounts, of Gulen movement funding.
The authors claim to have interviewed twelve
businessmen in Ankara who contribute “from 10%-70% of their
annual income, ranging from $20,000-$300,000 per year.” Ex.
A at 00062. Another “very successful businessman in
Istanbul” contributes “20% of his 4-5 million dollar yearly
income to movement-related projects.” Id. Finally, the
authors assert that many “graduate students, many of them on
small stipends from Turkey or from their American
universities, pledge $2,000-$5,000 every year even though
such pledges means [sic] great sacrifice on the students’
part.” Ex. A at 00064. The authors provide no source for
these alleged facts, other than their claim to have asked
twelve unidentified businessmen how much they contributed.
This is not scholarship; it is not even respectable
journalism. The evidence submitted by plaintiff, when
carefully examined, reveals that he is not a scholar and his
work is not the subject of serious scholarship. He is a
religious and political figure attempting to buy academic
prestige by paying people to write papers about him.6
6 The American Political Science Association web site
lists dozens of upcoming conferences, including one focused
on plaintiff scheduled for November 2008. That is the only
14
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 14 of 26
Plaintiff emphasizes the many highly complimentary
letters of support he submitted to the agency. It is
noteworthy, however, that only one of these letters is from
an expert in the field of education.7 See A.R. 00182
(letter from Dr. Sheryl L. Santos, Dean and Professor,
College of Education, Texas Tech University). Dr. Santos
says nothing about plaintiff’s educational methods or
contributions. She describes plaintiff as “a friend, a
peacemaker, an educated promoter of interfaith,
intercultural dialogue whose presence and message is [sic]
sorely needed in the world today.” Id. None of the other
twenty-eight supporting letters is from a person with any
connection to the field of education.
Plaintiff claims he has received several awards as
evidence of national and international acclaim in the field
of education. However, he presents no evidence that any of
conference listed that offers honoraria, plus travel and
accommodations grants, for presenters. See
www.apsanet.org/section_181.cfm (accessed June 16, 2008).
See also www.gulenconference.us (accessed June 18, 2008),
which describes the same conference but does not claim any
connection to the APSA.
7 As plaintiff points out, the field of education is a
discipline which is concerned with methods of teaching and
learning in schools. Pi. Mem., at 39. Put another way, it
is w[t]he field of study concerned with teaching and
learning pedagogy.” Webster’s II. at 418.
15
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 15 of 26
these awards recognize his accomplishments in the field of
education. See A.R. 00041 (“Contribution to Tolerance and
Dialogue”) .8 Further, it is not even clear that they were
all awards. The only evidence that plaintiff was an
“Honoree of the Peaceful Heroes Symposium” is a newsletter
stating that on April 16, 2005, the Student Association for
Islamic Dialogue at UTSA (presumably University of Texas at
San Antonio) presented a program about peaceful heroes at
which professors discussed “the Dalai Lama, Mohandas Gandhi,
Mother Teresa, Fethullah Gulen and M.L. King.” A.R. 01043.
The only evidence supporting plaintiff’s claim to be an
“Honoree of the Peace Heroes Award” by religious leaders in
Leeds, United Kingdom, is an advertisement for a forum
called “Heroes for Peace” containing the following
description: “Many people see religions as being the cause
of troubles and wars. This event aims to show how people
from all faiths work for peace – heroes such as Dadi Janki,
the Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King, King Ashok, Yitzhak
Rabin, Fethulla Gulen, Starhawk and Guru Nank.” A.R. 01047.
The only evidence to support plaintiff’s claim that he
8 The translations of news articles about this award
mention education, but the award itself does not. See A.R.
at 00041, 00045, 00047.
16
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 16 of 26
received the Intersociety Adaptation and Contribution to
Peace Award from the Kyrgzstan Spirituality Foundation is a
reference in an article in The Muslim World which is sourced
to an article in Zaman Daily, the Turkish newspaper
affiliated with the Gulen movement. A.R. 01049-01051. The
AAO properly found that plaintiff had not produced evidence
to support his claim either that he was the recipient of a
major, internationally recognized award in the field of
education, or that he was the recipient of lesser nationally
or internationally recognized awards in the field of
education.9
Plaintiff claims that the 40 books he has authored are
scholarly publications meeting the criterion set forth in 8
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Pi. Mem., at 49. He claims that
these works focus on religious tolerance and education and
are considered “scholarly work” by others in the field. Pi.
Mem., at 50. This assertion is not supported by evidence of
9 It is not clear whether plaintiff is relying on his
supposed meetings with Pope John Paul II as evidence of his
expertise in the field of education, but it should be noted
that his statement, at page 47 of his memorandum, that his
receipt of the UNESCO award “was another occasion in which
Mr. Gulen met with his Holiness Pope John Paul II,” is
patently untrue. The award was given in October 2005. A.R.
00041, 00162. Pope John Paul II died April 2, 2005.
17
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 17 of 26
record.
First, it should be noted that all of the books
authored by plaintiff which were submitted to the agency in
English were published not by university presses or
scholarly publishing houses, but by plaintiff’s own
publishing company, The Light Publishing Co., Inc.10 See
Exhibit B hereto (title pages and reverses of books
submitted by plaintiff). Some of the books list both The
Light and The Gulen Institute, and include the Gulen
Institute’s web site, www.en.faulen.com.
Second, none of these books are books about education,
teaching methods or pedagogy. They are all religious works.
Third, plaintiff presents no evidence that any of these
books are considered “scholarly work” by others in the field
of education. He asserts that he has submitted evidence
that his “methodologies have been widely cited or adopted by
the professional community at large,” PI. Mem., at 50, but
he does not identify either the methodologies or the
“professional community at large.” He claims he has created
10 According to its web site, The Light has now changed
its name to Tughra Books. See
(accessed June 16, 2008). The web site indicates the
company publishes approximately sixty titles, all religious.
18
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 18 of 26
a “model of education that uses a traditional secular
education to create interfaith tolerance,” PI.Mem., at 51,
but does not explain what is new, innovative or different
about “traditional secular education.” Traditional secular
education has been the norm in the United States since the
founding of the Republic. In any case, plaintiff points to
no evidence of what his “methodologies” are and no evidence
that anyone outside his movement has adopted them.
Plaintiff claims that “major national and international
conferences focus on Mr. Gulen’s work in the field of
religious tolerance and education.” PI. Mem., at 54.
Plaintiff has presented no evidence that any of the
conferences which focused on his work were major; indeed, at
least some of them appear to have been sponsored by groups
associated with him. Further, none of the conferences cited
focused on plaintiff’s work in the field of education.
Plaintiff bootstraps from his claims that major
conferences focused on his work in the field of education to
the conclusion that ” [a]s his articles and books were the
subject of this major international conference where his
theories were presented and debated, there is substantial
evidence in the record that his books and articles can be
19
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 19 of 26
considered ‘scholarly’ in and of themselves.” PI. Mem., at
52. This is a logical fallacy. Scholars study the work of
medieval guilds; that does not make the artisans’ work in
carpentry or masonry “scholarly.” Scientists study the work
of the honey bee; that does not make honeycombs “scholarly.”
Plaintiff argues that his work must be scholarly
because it is the subject of “coursework” (as opposed to
courses) at universities. Pi. Mem., at 55. All of the
courses cited, however, (none of which focus on plaintiff
exclusively) are courses on religion or political science.
None of these address the subject of education. Even if
plaintiff were correct in his assumption that study of one’s
work at the university level suggests that one’s work is
scholarly, that would still not make plaintiff an expert in
education. At most it would make him an expert in religion
or political science.
Plaintiff goes on to state that w[a]cademics at major
universities focus on his work in religious tolerance and
education and have made Mr. Gulen’s work the subject of
entire courses.” PI. Mem., at 56. This statement is
completely unsupported by any evidence. Plaintiff can point
to no entire courses devoted to his work; nor has he
20
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 20 of 26
identified any “major universities” where his work is the
subject of entire courses.
Plaintiff insists that he “has submitted substantial
evidence that he has authored scholarly articles in the
field of religious tolerance and education.” Pi. Mem., at
60. It is important to bear in mind that plaintiff is not
seeking a preferential visa based on his expertise in
religious tolerance; he is seeking preferential treatment
because he claims to be an alien of unusual ability in the
field of education. And despite his repeated, conclusory
assertions to the contrary, he has not submitted any
evidence that he has authored scholarly articles in the
field of education. He has not identified one single book
or article authored by himself (scholarly or not) in the
field of education. The evidence of record amply supports
the agency’s determination that plaintiff did not meet the
criterion set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204(h) (3) (vi) (authorship
of scholarly articles in the field).
Plaintiff argues that his speeches constitute evidence
of display of his work in the field of education at artistic
exhibitions or showcases. Pi. Mem., at 61; 8 C.F.R.
§ 204(h)(3)(vii). Congress obviously intended this section
21
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 21 of 26
to apply to artwork; simply calling speech venues
“showcases” does not make his speeches into works displayed
at artistic exhibitions and showcases.
More importantly, the record contains absolutely no
evidence relating to plaintiff’s speeches. There are no
transcripts of speeches, no audio or video recordings of his
speeches; there are not even any first-hand accounts of his
speeches. Even if a speech venue were a “showcase” as
contemplated by the regulation, the agency could not
favorably evaluate plaintiff’s claim to have showcased his
work by making speeches without some evidence that he made
any speeches and some evidence of the content of those
speeches.
Plaintiff also tries to fit the conferences at which
his work was discussed into the “artistic exhibitions and
showcases” category. Defendants believe the language of the
regulation unambiguously refers to displays of artwork.
Nevertheless, even if the term “showcase” could be tortured
into meaning “conference,” plaintiff would not meet this
criterion, because his work was not displayed at any of the
cited conferences. Other people’s work, not plaintiff’s,
was presented. Plaintiff’s work was discussed. Showcase
22
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 22 of 26
does not mean conference; display does not mean discuss.
The agency properly found plaintiff did not meet the
requirements under subsection (vii).
Plaintiff argues that he meets the criterion set forth
in subsection (viii) because he is “the leader of the Gulen
Movement,” a founder of the Institute for Interfaith Dialog,
the founder of the Journalists and Writers Foundation and
the honorary president of the Niagara Forum and the Rumi
Forum. PI. Mem., at 64, 67. First, the evidence submitted
by plaintiff indicates that the Gulen movement is not an
organization, but a loose network of projects inspired by
Gulen. See, e.g.. Ex. A at 00057. The Gulen movement, the
Institute for Interfaith Dialog, and the Journalists and
Writers Foundation were all created by plaintiff. Plaintiff
plays no “organic” role in the Rumi Forum or the Niagara
Forum A.R. 00192, 00196. Because plaintiff has not provided
evidence that he meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R.
§ 204(h)(3)(viii), the AAO’s decision with respect to this
criterion was not arbitrary or capricious.
Finally, plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence
that he will continue to work in the field of education
prospectively, as required under Section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of
23
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 23 of 26
the INA. Plaintiff did not bother to fill in the section on
his petition relating to prospective plans. A.R. 00243-
00245. He thereafter submitted an affidavit to rectify the
omission. The following passage is the only information
relating to plaintiff’s prospective plans in the entire
record:
Should my permanent residency be granted, it is my
intention to continue performing scholarly
research, advising other academics, and consulting
on conferences about my work. My presence in the
United States [] will allow me to continue to
advocate and promote interfaith dialogue and
harmony between members of different faiths and
religions.
A.R. 01053.
This is not the detailed plan required by the
regulations. Equally importantly, it has nothing whatever
to do with education. Plaintiff has never performed
scholarly research in the field of education. He has never
advised other academics in the field of education. And
consulting on conferences about his own work is essentially
continuing to promote himself and his movement by paying
academics to write papers about him. None of this can be
considered continuing to perform outstanding work in the
field of education.
24
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 24 of 26
Conclusion
The evidence of record discloses that plaintiff failed
to carry his burden of providing evidence that he is a
person of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts,
education, business, or athletics. He also failed to meet
his burden of providing evidence that he seeks to continue
work in the area of extraordinary ability while in the
United States. As a result, the agency’s denial of his visa
application was neither arbitrary, nor capricious, nor
contrary to law. Further, the decision was supported by
substantial evidence, and should be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,
PATRICK L. MEEHAN
United States Attorney
A, GIBSON
Chief, Civil Division
MARY CATHERINE FRYE
Assistant U.S. Attorne;
615 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 861-8323
(215) 861-8349 (fax)
mary.Catherine.frye@usdoj.qov
Dated: June 18, 2008
25
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 25 of 26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date I caused a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Response to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment to be served by first class United
States mail, postage prepaid, upon the following:
H. Ronald Klasko, Esquire
Theodore Murphy, Esquire
Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP
1800 J.F. Kennedy Blvd.
Suite 1700
Philadelphia, PA 19103
MARY CATHERINE FRYE J
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Dated: June 18, 2008
Case 2:07-cv-02148-SD Document 31 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 26 of 26
