dismissed EB-1A Case: Accounting

identifying data de!cted to 
prevent cieariy unwascanted 
invasion of pe~sonal privacy 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
pu~LlC and Immigration 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. ij 103.S(a)(l)(i). 
cting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director also questioned the 
petitioner's intent to continue working in his area of expertise. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, counsel's 
characterization of the evidence of record is not persuasive. For example, counsel attempts to rely on 
the same evidence to meet multiple criteria, including criteria to which the evidence has little relevance. 
In addition, as will be discussed in detail below, counsel inaccurately characterized search results as 
pertaining to the petitioner's book. Moreover, counsel's reference to the large amount of 
documentation submitted does not take into account that duplicates of the same documents were 
submitted as part of multiple exhibits and some evidence submitted has questionable relevance to the 
petitioner's purported personal acclaim.' We cannot conclude that the statutory requirement for 
"extensive documentation" is satisfied by mere quantity of paper. Ultimately, while we conclude that 
the petitioner has demonstrated his leading or critical role for a distinguished organization pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we uphold the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not 
demonstrated the necessary sustained national or international acclaim, especially as of 2007 when the 
petition was filed. Finally, while the requirements regarding hture employment plans at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(5) are minimal, the petitioner's explanation of his work plans are questionable given the 
lack of evidence that there is a market in the United States for experts in Colombian accounting 
practices. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
' Our conclusion that some of the evidence, such as multiple documents generated by the petitioner's 
accounting firm in the normal course of business, has little relevance to the petitioner's claim to enjoy 
national or international acclaim is not meant to suggest that such evidence was not reviewed and considered. 
All evidence of record has been duly considered. 
(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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that 
an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise 
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that Giilen v. Chertox 2008 WL 2779001 (E.D. Pa. 2008) "sets forth a new 
analytical framework" for the evaluation of petitions under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. In contrast 
to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, the AAO is not 
bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in cases arising within the 
same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 718 (BIA 1993). The reasoning underlying a 
district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the AAO; 
however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. In addition, as the 
published decisions of the district courts are not binding on the AAO outside of that particular 
proceeding, the unpublished decision of a district court would necessarily have even less persuasive 
value. 
Regardless, the court's decision in Giilen is extremely limited and in no way "sets forth a new 
analytical framework." Moreover, the limited findings in that decision have little relevance to the 
issues before us. First, the Giilen court addressed whether the alien's occupation in that case fell 
under one of the fields covered in section 203(b)(l)(A) of the ~ct.~ 2008 WL 2779001 at * 3. In the 
matter before us, the director did not contest that the alien's occupation falls under "business." The 
court in Giilen also concluded that the reaction of scholars is more indicative of whether an article is 
scholarly than the nature of the audience at which the article is aimed. Id. The director's decision in 
the matter before us, however, did not contest that the content of the petitioner's articles was 
* This holding ultimately decided the case in Giilen as the court presumed that the AAO would have found 
that the alien met the necessary third criteriori and would continue in his area of expertise if the AAO had 
considered the petitioner's occupation to fall within one of the statutory fields of endeavor. 2008 WL 
2779001 at "3-4. 
"scholarly." Counsel's specific assertions relating to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) 
will be addressed below. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an accounting 
educator and consultant. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation 
outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained 
acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence 
that, he claims, meets the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).~ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following certificates: 
1. National Recognition of the Profession from the Tenth Colombian Congress of 
Public Accountants for contribution to the development and enhancement of 
public accounting in Colombia, dated August 16, 1991 ; 
2. In recognition of "fabulous developments as the president of the Colombia 
School of Public Accountants, due to his effort on maintaining the peace, union, 
independency and strength and enhancement of the public accountant in 
Colombia and Hispanoamerica" from the Venezuelan Federation School of 
Accountants, dated August 14, 199 1 ; 
3. In recognition of the petitioner's "excellent human, moral, ethical qualities, 
professional achievements and for his enormously support [sic] to the ex-alumni 
association of the university from the Ex-Alumni Association of Central 
University, dated May 1992; 
4. In recognition of the petitioner as an "Excellent director of the Iberoamerican 
Public Accountant Recognizing His outstanding Continental Activity" from the 
Venezuelan Federation School of Accountants dated July 25, 1990; 
5. The Public Accountant Medal recognizing "outstanding professional activity 
and service given for the Public Accountants Association" from the Federal 
District School of Public Accountants in Caracas, dated July 25, 1990; and 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
6. In appreciation for the petitioner's "collaboration during the year 1986" from the 
Colombia School of Public Accountants, Cundinamarca Section. 
The director requested evidence of the significance and scope of the petitioner's awards and the criteria 
for selection. In response, counsel focuses on the regulatory requirement that a qualifying award be 
"for excellence" and reiterates the language on the above certificates. The director concluded that the 
record lacked evidence of the significance of the awards such as media coverage of the awards or 
announcements of the awardees. 
On appeal, counsel no longer asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
 While the above 
certificates of recognition and appreciation may have been issued in recognition of the petitioner's 
"excellence," at issue is whether the certificates themselves are nationally or internationally recognized 
awards or prizes as required under the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). The 
language used by the institutions issuing the certificates is not determinative regarding the perception of 
these certificates in the field at large. We concur with the director that the record lacks evidence that 
these certificates are recognized within the accounting field in Colombia, Venezuela or internationally 
as significant awards or prizes for excellence, such as evidence of media coverage in the general or 
trade media of the award selections. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner is or was a member of numerous entities. Several of the 
"memberships" identified by counsel appear to be positions for an association rather than a membership 
in that association. Such positions are best considered under the leading or critical criterion set forth at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii), discussed below. Regardless, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 
19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
The documents within the exhibit labeled as relevant to this criterion include (1) a "personal reference" 
\r A 
from 
 (2) a self-serving list of "experience" and "other 
ex~erience." (3) a "certification" of the ~etitioner's Dosition with a confederation and ~artici~ation at 
evkts fro'' (4) a certiicate for participation at the 1979 Congress of the 
Confederation of Public Accountants of the Andean Countries and Brazil (CPAACB) in Peru listing 
the petitioner as an active member, (5) a June 12,2007 letter confirming the petitioner's membership in 
the Inter-American Accounting Association (AIC) fiom the Executive Director of AIC, (6) a self- 
serving letter hom the petitioner purporting to accept the position of "supplement member" on the 
Board of the Colombia Gastronomic Industry Association (ACODRE), (7) a letter horn the Executive 
Director of ACODRE confirming that the petitioner offered a seminar to ACODRE members, and (8) a 
letter from an accountant in Florida and former Dean of the School of Accounting at the 
Universidad Externado de Colombia affirming that the petitioner taught at the university, served as 
president of the Colombian School of Public Accountants, offered "support" to other organizations and 
was a member of the AIC. 
ACODRE does not appear to be an association in the petitioner's field of accounting. Regardless, the 
petitioner's claim to be a member of ACODRE is self-serving. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Cornm'r. 1972)). The Executive Director of ACODRE merely 
confirms that the petitioner made a presentation to ACODRE members. In addition, a position on a 
board of directors is not a "membership" in an association as contemplated by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Rather, a board position is best considered as a potential leading or critical role 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii), discussed below. Thus, of the above eight documents, the only 
memberships in an association in the petitioner's field documented are the petitioner's membership in 
AIC and CPAACB. The director requested evidence of the membership criteria for any association of 
which the petitioner was a member. In response, counsel asserts: "Assuming a membership role in the 
organizations mentioned herein requires outstanding achievements as evidenced by the very nature of 
the authority the organizations have over accounting practice throughout the country and the respective 
position assumed by" the petitioner. The petitioner submitted materials about the mission and 
objectives of AIC, but not its membership criteria. 
The director concluded that the record contains no evidence of AIC's membership criteria, such as the 
association's bylaws, or evidence that membership is judged by national or international experts in the 
field. On appeal, counsel does not address this criterion. We concur with the director's conclusion and 
analysis. We reiterate that we will consider the petitioner's position with various organizations below 
pursuant to the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii). At issue for this criterion are the 
membership criteria of the association of which the petitioner is a member. We will not presume the 
membership criteria from an association's mission or authority. It is the petitioner's burden to 
demonstrate exactly what the association's membership criteria are. Without evidence, such as AIC's 
constitution or bylaws, setting forth the official membership criteria for AIC, we cannot conclude that 
the petitioner's membership in AIC is qualifying. The record also lacks such documentation relating to 
CPAACB. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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. 
The petitioner submitted a 1987 business brief in the "Economica" section of El Universal reporting the 
petitioner's recent "conversation with the news" as the new president of the National School of Public 
Accountants. No author is listed for this business brief, suggesting that it is a press release. The 
petitioner also submitted evidence that El Universal covers Bolivar, Sucre, Cordoba and the San 
Andrks Islands, maintaining a higher circulation "far above any other newspaper of the coast or national 
in these zones." The petitioner also submitted a 1984 news bulletin issued by the Colegio Colombano 
de Contadores Publicos. The petitioner provided an uncertified translation of page 3, paragraph 9, 
reporting that the petitioner and a colleague formed a committee to promote the candidacy of Cartagena 
to be the main branch of the Third Congress of the Colombian Confederation of Public Accountants. 
In response to the director's request for evidence as to the significance of the above materials, counsel 
reiterates the information provided about El Universal. The petitioner also submits a copy of a 2008 
article in El Tiempo that is about his firm, Y&Y Business Consultants. No author is listed and the 
article concludes with contact information for the firm, suggesting the piece is a press release from 
Y&Y Business Consultants. While the petitioner submitted evidence that the newspaper enjoys a 
national distribution in six regional editions, the petitioner did not establish that the press release 
appeared in a nationally circulated portion of the paper. Regardless, this article postdates the filing of 
the petition and cannot be considered evidence of the petitioner's eligibility at that time. See 8 C.F.R. 
$5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). The director's 
final decision does not address this criterion. On appeal, counsel no longer asserts that the petitioner 
meets this criterion. 
The record contains no evidence that the college news bulletin submitted initially is a professional or 
major trade journal or other major media. Moreover, the translated paragraph is not about the 
petitioner. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) specifically requires that evidence submitted to 
meet this criterion include the author of the material, revealing that the author is relevant information. 
A business press release reproduced among other business announcements carries less weight than 
independent journalistic coverage of the petitioner, relating to his work. Moreover, the 1987 business 
brief in El Universal is not evidence of sustained acclaim 20 years later in 2007 when the petition was 
filed. Counsel's assertion in response to the director's request for additional evidence that the 
published materials "range from the years 1987 - 2008" is disingenuous as it implies a consistent 
stream of media coverage. The record contains a single business brief from 1987 and a single press 
release from 2008. As stated above, the 2008 press release in El Tiempo postdates the filing of the 
petition and cannot be considered. Consistent with the reasoning in Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
at 49; Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1977); Matter of Great 
Wall, 16 I&N Dec. 142, 144-145 (Act. Reg'l. Comm'r. 1977); Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 
175-76 (Comm'r. 1998), the petitioner cannot secure a priority date based on evidence that predates 
the petition by 20 years in the hopes that new material will surface during the proceeding. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjcance in thejeld. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner's "most lasting contribution has been in the codification of 
Accounting Law in Colombia," specifically, Accounting Law 43. Counsel further asserted that the 
petitioner's published articles and lectures serve to meet this criterion. Finally, counsel asserted that 
the petitioner's formation of an accounting firm that has "over one hundred (100) business clients in 
Colombia" and is one of the "leading accounting firms" serves to meet this criterion. The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter 
of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
 current1 marketing vice president of Coris 
USA and former general manager of Viajes Media S.A. Mr. 
 affirms that the petitioner 
"contributed irnmensly [sic] to the accounting field, and by collaborating with me, has also contributed 
to the economic and financial development of the tourism industry." specifically, asserts 
that from 1990 to 1997, the petitioner provided professional services including fiscal auditing to Viajes 
Media, a tourism firm. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter fiom 
 Global Business Director for Nestle, 
asserting; that, based on the petitioner's skills, talent and creativity, he holds "a very important and 
- 
superior position within the Accounting ~o~unit~ in ~olombia." &herAasserts that 
the petitioner "contributes to shape up younger Accountants with his knowledge by teaching and 
offering lectures, both in national and international forums." concludes that he admires 
the petitioner based on the petitioner's contributions to 1 own business and affirms "the 
joy of having him as a friend." 
In addition, the petitioner submitted the "personal reference" fiom , a Bogota public 
accountant. lists several memberships and positions in accounting associations, some 
of which are documented in the record. also confirms that the petitioner started his 
own business, Soconta Consultores, later renamed Y&Y Business Consultants which serves over 100 
clients in Colombia, Ecuador and Panama. - asserts that the petitioner participated in 
accountin events and "led seminars" in several cities in Colombia and other Latin American countries. 
h references the petitioner's books and bulletin articles. Finally, states 
that the petitioner "was an indispensable person during the work of promotion, study and creation of the 
Law 43 that regulates the practice of accounting in Colombia in 1990." does not 
explain how he has first hand knowledge of any of this information. For example, he does not provide 
his own role in the preparation of Law 43. 
The petitioner also submitted a "Certification" from 
 of the 
Colombian Federation of Public Accountant Colleges, asserting that the petitioner was the president of 
the Cundinarnarca Department of the Colombian Public Accountant College fiom 1985 to 1987 and 
National President of this college from 1987 through 1991. explains that, as part of the 
petitioner's duties, "he had a remarkable participation in the process of promotion, redaction, and 
discussion on a Law Project that became law 43 in 1990, such law reformed the standardized procedure 
in Public Accounting in Colombia." 
Regarding Y&Y Business Consultants, the petitioner submitted the formation documents for the 
company listing the petitioner as a founder. The petitioner also submitted considerable foreign 
language documentation regarding this company. While the petitioner failed to submit translations of 
this documentation, certified as required under 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3) or otherwise, we do not contest 
that the company exists and was founded by the petitioner. Without certified translations, however, we 
cannot determine whether the large amount of foreign language documentation was intended to 
demonstrate anything further. As the petitioner has not explained the relevance of this documentation, 
it is not immediately apparent that certified translations, had they been submitted, would shed 
additional light on the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion or any other criterion. The petitioner 
also submitted a list of Y&Y Business Consultants' clients. 
Further, the petitioner submitted an invitation to attend a 2007 conference. The schedule does not list 
the petitioner as a speaker. Another invitation lists the petitioner as an "exponent" of the event. In 
addition, the petitioner submitted uncertified summary translations of letters confirming the petitioner's 
presentation at a seminar in 2006. The petitioner further submitted certificates listing the petitioner as a 
delegate, participant or assistant to the 5" Congress of Public Accountants of Colombia in 1979, the 6" 
Meeting of Public Accountants in 1978 and similar events as well as certificates listing the petitioner as 
a participant in several seminars (some of which addressed specific tax or fiscal legislation) through 
2007. The listing of credit hours on the seminar participation certificates suggests that they represent 
continuing professional education. The certificates do not establish that the petitioner was a speaker or 
instructor at the seminars where he merely participated. The record does not establish the petitioner's 
duties at the seminars where he is identified as having assisted the seminar. The petitioner did not serve 
as a delegate at any recent conference. The petitioner was an exhibitor at two "seminars" that appear to 
have been organized by Y&Y Business Consultants, the petitioner's own business, in 2006. The record 
contains no evidence regarding the attendance at or other significance of these "seminars" organized by 
the petitioner through his own firm. 
Under the exhibit labeled scholarly articles, the petitioner submitted 2006 and 2007 editions of Bamboo 
Empresarial, printed on Y&Y Business Consultants letterhead. An unattributed document that 
provides summary translations of these bulletins asserts that the Bamboo Empresarial is a "publication?' 
issued by Y&Y Business Consultants to "clients and people interested of [sic] financial and accounting 
topics." The same exhibit also contains a partial translation of commentary on Senate Law Project 2 1 1 
authored by the petitioner in 2007 and issued by Y&Y Business Consultants. The petitioner also 
submitted the book Iniciacidn a Las NIIF (Introduction to the International Financial Standards). The 
subtitle of the book is "Fundamentos para aplicaci6n de las Normas Internacionales de Informaci6n 
Financiers." The petitioner is listed as the author of one article in this publication and wrote the 
introduction describing Y&Y Business Consultants' objective in publishing the book. The book begins 
with the mission and vision of Y&Y Business Consultants. The book is identified as the 2006 first 
edition with 500 copies. The petitioner failed to submit any evidence regarding how many copies were 
actually sold. The petitioner also submitted his editorials contained in the news bulletin of the 
Colombia School of Public Accountants from 1986 and 1987. While a summary translation purports 
to summarize two 1987 articles in this bulletin by the petitioner, the foreign language documents do not 
appear to credit the petitioner with these articles. Rather, they are either credited to someone else or 
uncredited. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets 
this criterion based on his service as a "major contributor to the codification of Accounting Law in 
Colombia," his founding and restructuring of Y&Y Business Consultants, his "countless" publications 
that "serve as authorities in the accounting practice," his lectures "attended by hundreds of practicing 
professionals" and his awards, discussed above. Counsel discusses the petitioner's role in the 
codification of Law 43 at length, focuses on the over 100 clients of Y&Y Business Consultants and 
finally affirms the significance of the petitioner's books, "articles" and presentations. As stated above, 
however, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 
19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. at 506. The petitioner submitted evidence of two other books authored by the petitioner 
and published through Y&Y Business Consultants, one of which postdates the filing of the petition. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that the petitioner's book Aggregate Value of the Fiscal Review 
is available at the Icesi University Library, and the results for a search for "iniciacion a las niif" at 
www.goo~le.com. The results from this-search, however, reveal the existence of a book edited by 
ISBN, with the title Dossier Iniciacidn a Las NIIF and the subtitle 
"Normas Internacionales de Information Financiera." The ~etitioner's book entitled Iniciacidn a Las 
NIIF lists no editor and the ISBN is 
 The pe;itioner's book also has a different subtitle. 
The petitioner has not demonstrated that any of the search results relate to his book rather than the one 
edited by - 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that he had made contributions of major 
significance, noting both that the petitioner had not submitted reference letters explaining the 
significance of his contributions and that reference letters alone cannot support a claim of eligibility for 
the classification sought. 
On appeal, counsel notes that Giilen, 2008 WL 2779001 at * 3, found that "a work becomes scholarly 
by virtue of its author and its subject matter, not its intended audience." Counsel then asserts that 
this statement should be applied "by way of analogy" to the contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), but does not clearly explain how this analogy would impact our analysis of this 
criterion. Unlike the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(vi), under consideration by 
the Giilen court, the contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(v) specifically states that the 
scholarly or business contributions must be both original and of major significance. We must presume 
that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. To be 
considered a contribution of major significance in the field of accounting, it can be presumed that the 
impact of the contribution would be demonstrable in the field. Counsel then reiterates previous 
assertions about the petitioner's work on Law 43, founding of his own firm, books, "articles" and 
presentations. 
At the outset, we note that counsel is attempting to merge separate criteria under this criterion. 
Specifically, awards and prizes have their own criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). While we will 
also consider the evidence under this criterion where appropriate, we will not presume that awards 
and prizes insufficient to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) must meet this criterion. 
Similarly, we will not presume that scholarly articles and comparable evidence, such as oral 
presentations at major conferences and books, must meet this criterion in addition to the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi), which explicitly addresses scholarly articles. Finally, we will not 
presume that evidence that the alien has performed a leading or critical role for a distinguished 
entity, such as founding a distinguished accounting firm, must meet this separate criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(v) in addition to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii). To hold otherwise would 
negate the statutory requirement for extensive evidence (that is, presumably, not duplicative) and the 
regulatory requirement that an alien meet at least three separate criteria. 
Law 43 
We do not contest that a primary role in the development of a new statutory or regulatory scheme 
overseeing a profession could constitute a contribution of major significance. The record, however, 
does not sufficiently support counsel's assertion that the petitioner played such a role or that Law 43 
was a major revision of Colombian accounting law. While the petitioner has submitted certificates 
confirming his service as a delegate to various accounting congresses, the record does not establish 
that these congresses were devoted to developing Law 43. Similarly, the certificates of appreciation 
submitted as awards make no mention of Law 43. 
 Some of the references who attest to the 
petitioner's role with this project do not explain their own first hand knowledge of this project. The 
petitioner did submit a "certification" from affirming that the petitioner "had outstanding 
participation" in the promotion process, writing and discussion of the law project that became Law 
43, codifying the norms in Colombian accounting law. does not indicate how many 
others participated in this project or compare the petitioner's role with the others involved. Without 
more detail about the petitioner's role in this project from individuals with first hand knowledge of 
this project, possibly from the legislators who ultimately enacted the law, we cannot conclude that 
the petitioner's participation with Law 43 can serve to meet this criterion. Moreover, we cannot 
ignore that 
 suggests that Law 43 merely codified existing norms. If true, we must 
question whether Law 43 is even original. 
 Even if we did conclude that the petitioner had 
established his role with Law 43 and the originality and significance of its impact on accounting in 
Colombia, the law was passed in 1990, 17 years before the petition was filed. Thus, this project is 
not evidence of the petitioner's sustained acclaim in 2007. 
Y&Y Business Consultants 
We will consider the petitioner's founding role for this company and its reputation below pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii). At issue for this criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), is 
whether the petitioner's founding and running of a large accounting firm is evidence of an original 
contribution of major significance to Colombian accounting. First, we are not persuaded that 
founding a large accounting firm is original. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner's 
firm is the only Colombian firm with over 100 clients. Second, we are not persuaded that merely 
documenting over 100 clients creates a presumption that the founder of the accounting firm has made 
a contribution of major significance such that a demonstrable impact on the accounting field is 
apparent. Thus, while we do not question that the petitioner's role with this firm is relevant evidence 
for this classification and will be considered below pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we are 
not persuaded that this role can serve to meet this separate criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Book. Articles and Seminar Participation 
First, as previously stated, the regulatory criteria include a separate criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi) relating to scholarly articles. 
 Thus, such evidence cannot be considered as 
presumptive evidence to meet this entirely separate criterion. As also stated above, counsel attempts 
to apply the reasoning in Giilen, 2008 WL 2779001 at * 3 to this criterion. Given the vast difference 
in wording between the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (vi), we are not persuaded that 
Giilen 's reasoning relating to 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(vi) is relevant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Nevertheless, the Giilen court noted that the petitioner in that case had submitted evidence that should 
have been persuasive, such as evidence that the petitioner's writings were prominent on university 
course syllabi and that there were academic studies of the petitioner's philosophy. The record in this 
case contains no such evidence. The fact that the petitioner's book is available at a single university is 
not similar to appearing on the course syllabi at several universities. As stated above, the petitioner has 
established that the results for the phrase in his book title, which appears in another book, reflect the 
influence of the petitioner's own book. The number of copies printed is not as persuasive as evidence 
of how many books were actually sold. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner's articles 
appeared in widely circulated prestigious journals as opposed to the news letter issued by his own 
company and, well before the petition was filed, in a school newsletter. As noted above, the certificates 
of participation do not suggest that the petitioner was a presenter or instructor at those seminars. The 
record also lacks evidence that the petitioner's assistance referenced on other certificates demonstrates 
that he served as an instructor at those seminars. The petitioner has not demonstrated the attendance of 
the "seminars" organized by his own company. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his books, "articles" and seminar 
presentations, if any, serve to meet this criterion. 
Summary 
The record lacks evidence supporting counsel's assessment of the significance of the petitioner's career. 
Without evidence that documents the petitioner's role in the development of Law 43, the law's impact 
or the impact of the petitioner's firm (other than the number of clients), books, "articles" or seminars, 
we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director stated at the outset that the petitioner's articles had not garnered national or international 
attention, ultimately concluding that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the articles authored by 
the petitioner were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. On 
appeal, counsel focuses only on the director's initial observation rather than his concern that the articles 
had not appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
We concur with the director that Y&Y Business Consultant's own newsletter prepared primarily for its 
clients does not constitute a professional or major trade publication or other major media. While the 
letterhead on which the newsletter is issued lists an ISSN number, the record lacks evidence that this 
number represents a true professional or major trade publication or other major media.4 The record 
also lacks evidence that the school newsletter for which the petitioner composed editorials is a 
professional or major trade journal or other major media. Moreover, these editorials predate the filing 
of the petition by several years. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner had coauthored two books as of the filing date. Once again, these 
books are self-published by the petitioner's own company. Thus, the petitioner must demonstrate that 
they are consistent with or indicative of national or international acclaim if that statutory standard is to 
have any meaning. As stated above, the search results for the phrase in the petitioner's book title do not 
appear to relate to the petitioner's own book rather than the phrase in general or a book containing the 
same phrase. Thus, the petitioner has not established that his authorship of this self-published book is 
indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien S work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Counsel does not contest the director's conclusion that this criterion relates to visual artists and we 
concur with the director. Thus, we will not consider the petitioner's claims to have delivered 
presentations at accounting seminars under this criterion. 
4 
 We were unable to confirm the existence of the ISSN number on an Internet search cite that allows for a 
search of ISSN numbers. 
 See www.oclc.org/firstsearch/~eriodicals, accessed on August 10, 2009 and 
incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted the evidence discussed above under the membership criterion set forth at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The director concluded that letters could not serve to meet this criterion and 
that the record did not establish the nature of the petitioner's role in the Law 43 project. On appeal, 
counsel reiterates the evidence submitted. 
We have already considered the petitioner's alleged contributions and memberships above. At issue for 
this criterion are the nature of the role the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the entity 
that selected him. In other words, the nature of the role itself must be indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim. We are persuaded that founding and running Y&Y Business 
Consultants is a leading or critical role for that company. While the number of clients, in and of itself, 
does not create a presumption of the company's distinguished reputation, we are satisfied fkom the 
record as a whole that the company does enjoy such a reputation. Moreover, the petitioner previously 
served as president of the Colombian School of Public Accountants, another leading role for an entity 
with a distinguished reputation. Thus, we are satisfied that the petitioner meets this single criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as an 
accountant to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as an accountant, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
No offer of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States 
nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must be 
accompanied by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue 
work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective 
employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her 
work in the United States. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a statement 
asserting that his publications and lectures serve as an invaluable resource and listing the types of 
services he would be able to provide in the U.S., including counseling on international tax matters. The 
director concluded that the petitioner's statement was vague. On appeal, counsel notes that Giilen, 
2008 WL 2779001 at * 4, stresses that no job offer is required. While we concur that the statute and 
regulation make clear that no job offer is required, it does not follow that USCIS may not examine 
the alien's statement for credibility. We cannot ignore that the record lacks evidence that accounting 
laws are internationally consistent. We find that the petitioner's plans in this matter would be far 
more credible if he had provided documentary evidence, such as job postings, establishing that there 
is a market in the United States for experts in Colombian accounting law. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.