dismissed EB-1A Case: Acrobatics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 0 3 809 
LIN 08 135 51073 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. $ 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
k(~!&htk, 
Perry Rhew 
"\ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the arts and athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to 
demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of 
the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability based on his 
receipt of major, internationally recognized awards and through meeting at least three of the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(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, 
60898-99 (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. 5 204.5(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. 5 204.5(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. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on April 3, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an acrobat. 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). On page 15 of her appellate brief, counsel states that the 
petitioner's "Golden awards and Honor certificates alone clearly establish more than a one-time 
achievement or major, internationally recognized awards in his chosen field of Circus performance." 
While the petitioner submitted information about some of the competitions in which he received 
awards from the competitions' organizers and from various unidentified sources, the record lacks 
evidence demonstrating his awards' significance and their level of international recognition. The 
specific deficiencies pertaining to each of the awards and honor certificates submitted by the 
petitioner will be addressed below in our discussion of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one- 
time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101 -723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted 
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at "6739. Given that the House Report specifically 
cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement, examples of one-time awards 
which enjoy major, international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, 
and (most relevant for athletics) an Olympic Medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative 
history, stating that a one-time achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The selection of -he example provided by Congress, is 
reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name 
to the public at large and includes a large cash prize. Wle an internationally recognized award could 
conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from 
the example provided by Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationally 
recognized in the alien's field as one of the top awards in that field. In this case, the petitioner has not 
submitted evidence establishing that any of his awards equate to major, internationally recognized 
awards. 
Barring the alien's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) 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. A petitioner, 
however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply 
relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets 
a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not 
be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
Page 4 
field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in thefield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
petitioner "won the honorary performer award in the first annual youth acrobat 
competition in Henan Province" (February 1997); 
2. Honor Certificate stating that the petitioner and eight other individuals from the 
\ - . - . - - - - - - - - - - 
 ' J7 
3. Honor Certificate from thestating that the 
- 
petitioner "performed ' t the 
We have decided to record this 
individual achievement and issue this special certificate." (July 1998); 
4. Certificate from the " in Paris stating that 
- 
the petitioner received a (~anuar~ 1998); 
5. Award Certificate from the tating 
that the petitioner "performed 'autumn son [sic] in the air' at the 
 third 
national youth acrobat competition and won the - (September 1998); 
6. Honor Certificate from the 
stating that the petitioner "had an outstanding evaluation in the work 
year of 1997" and "was also named the most progressive worker" (March 1998); 
7. Undated certificate from the ing that the petitioner 
is "An honored member . . . 
1978-1 995, The First 
petitioner and three 
others received a 
10. Certificate from the stating that the petitioner 
"performed 'Shaolin pole climb' at the fourth acrobat competition in - 
won the December 1999); 
1 1. Certificate 
 stating that the petitioner 
"performed etition in - 
and won the (December 1999); 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 5 
12. Certificate stating that the petitioner "performed 
acrobat festival 
(November 2001 ); 
13. Certificate from the 
 in Paris stating that 
the petitioner received a Silver Medal (February 2002); 
14. ~enificate from the stating that the petitioner 
"performed 'passing 
Province and won the 
15. Award Certificate fro 
that the petitioner "pe 
national youth acrobat competition and won the- (August 2002). 
In regard to items 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14, these awards reflect local, internal, or provincial 
recognition rather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. 
Regarding item 9, the award certificate does not specifically name the petitioner. 
With regard to items 4 and 13, these certificates in the French language were unaccompanied by 
certified English language translations. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3), any document containing 
foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation 
that 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. Without a proper translation, 
we cannot assign any weight to this evidence. Moreover, in response to the director's request for 
evidence, the petitioner submitted a document entitled "Paris, France 'T 
The document provides general information about the 
acrobatics festival, but the author or source of this document is not identified. 
Further, the document does not bear organizational letterhead, an official seal, or some other type of 
certification demonstrating its reliability. 
 The document notes that the festival has separate 
- 
competitive sessions targeting young performers in the ategories. 
Regarding items 4 and 13. we note that both certificates indicate that the ~etitioner com~eted in the 
under the age of 16." However. documentation submitted bv the ~etitioner on anneal about the 
" I I 
met site clearly 
s old inclusive." 
The documentation further states that the ategory was "for acrobats over 18 
and less than 25 years old." Thus, the petitioner has submitted conflicting information regarding the 
age of the competitors in the Future category in which he competed. It is incumbent upon the 
petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any 
attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits 
competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591- 
92 (BIA 1988). With regard to the 
document for which no source was specilied and which had content that was inconsistent with other 
evidence in the record, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the 
visa petition. Id. at 59 1. 
Regarding item 2, the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included a 
document entitled hich provides general 
information about the competition. The translation identified the source of this document as the 
not include a name, address, telephone number, or any other information through which the 
committee may be contacted. Further, the document does not bear organizational letterhead, an 
official seal, a signature, or some other type of certification demonstrating its reliability and 
sufficiency. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
 We further note that the petitioner's Honor 
Certificate (item 2) indicates that he shared this award with eight other individuals from the 
With regard to item 15, the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included a 
document entitled "' hich provides 
general information about the competition. Although the translation identifies the source of this 
- 
document as the 
 the document itself does not 
include a name, address, telephone number, or any other information through which the organization 
may be contacted. Further, the document does not bear Ministry of culture letterhead, &I official 
seal, a signature, or some other type of certification demonstrating its reliability and sufficiency. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. We further note that the petitioner's award certificate (item 15) 
indicates that he won the award in the "youth acrobat competition." 
With regard to items 1 through 15, we note that the petitioner was born on November 15, 1984 and 
that the submitted awards were all won prior to his eighteen birthday. With regard to awards won by 
the petitioner in amateur or "youth" competition, we do not find that such awards indicate that he "is 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(2). There is no indication that the petitioner faced competition from throughout his field, 
rather than being limited to his approximate age group within the field. USCIS has long held that 
even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability7' 
standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comrnr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.~ 
2 
 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 1995 
WL 1533 19 at *4 (N.D. 111. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. 111. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Page 7 
Likewise, it does not follow that an acrobat who has had success in age-restricted competition should 
necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa. To find otherwise 
would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be 
reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of 
endeavor." 
In regard to items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 - 15, the record does not include supporting evidence 
demonstrating the significance and magnitude of the specific competitive events won by the 
petitioner. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically 
requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of 
endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. For instance, there is no 
evidence of the official comprehensive results from the preceding competitions indicating the 
number of entrants in the petitioner's competitive category. Moreover, a competition may be open 
to athletes from throughout a particular country or countries, but this factor alone is not adequate to 
establish that an award or prize is "nationally or internationally recognized." The burden is on the 
petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition and achievement associated with his awards. In 
this case, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's awards had 
significant recognition beyond the presenting organizations and therefore are commensurate with 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
Finally, even if the petitioner were to demonstrate that his awards from 2002 and earlier were 
sufficient to meet this criterion, there is no evidence demonstrating that he is the recipient of a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award in acrobatics during the five years preceding the 
petition's April 3,2008 filing date. Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his national or 
international acclaim as an acrobat has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The preceding evidence is not consistent 
with sustained national or international acclaim as of the date of filing of this petition and, thus, is 
insufficient to meet this criterion without additional evidence under this criterion or other criteria 
documenting the petitioner's more recent acclaim as an acrobat. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classlJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
Page 8 
The petitioner submitted an undated certificate stating that he is an honored member of the = 
but there is no evidence (such as membership bylaws) showing the 
admission requirements for this committee. 
dentifying his qualification as "First class actor" (2003). There is no 
evidence that this qualification constitutes membership in an association in the field for which 
classification is sought rather than an employment qualification credential issued by the government 
of Henan Province. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a 
document entitled ' 
 hich lists the principle 
standards for designation as a First-Class Performer. 
 Item 5 of the document states that the 
standards "are made and delegated by the provincial mnd 
Personnel Office of the autonomous region." The source of this document is not identified. For 
example, the document does not specify which provincial Office of Human Resources Management 
or regional Personnel Office generated the document. Further, the document does not bear 
organizational letterhead, an official seal, a signature, or some other type of certification 
demonstrating its reliability and sufficiency. The earlier inconsistency involving a document in 
which the source was not specified, combined with the preceding deficiencies, casts doubt regarding 
- 
 - - 
the reliability and sufficiency of the 
 ocument 
submitted by the petitioner. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Moreover, the petitioner has not 
established that his qualification was judged by recognized national or international experts in his field 
The petitioner submitted membership certificates dated October 6, 2004 indicating that he is a "First 
All members must have high levels of talent in the circus arts of creation performance, 
directing, music, stage effects, teaching, theoretical research, organization and management 
areas, have high achievement with certain influences, and is completely voluntary. 
With the application and referral by two members, examination and approval of the Council, 
one can successfully become a member of the association. 
The preceding guidelines do not define what consitutes "high levels of talent" or "hlgh achevrnent." 
Thus, the petitoner has not established that these requirements equate to "outstanding achievements." 
Further, as provincial council members examine an applicant's qualifications, the petitoner has not 
established that his membership was judged by recognized national or international experts in his field. 
Rule Three of the -states: "All acrobats who are a citizen of 
-. 
China, over the age of 16, have considerable achievements in the field of acrobatics, and two referrals 
from current members can become members of the association after the approval of their application by 
Page 9 
the board." The meceding rule does not define what consitutes "considerable achievements" 
" 
Accordingly, the petitoner has not established that the requires 
"outstanding achievements" for admission to membership. Further, the documentation submitted does 
not indicate that the petitoner's membership was judged by recognized national or international experts 
in his field. 
Aside li-om the preceding deficiences, the documents entitled - 
do not include an address, telephone number, or any 
other information through which the associations may be contacted. Further, the documents do not 
bear association letterhead, an official seal, a signature, or some other type of certification 
demonstrating their reliability and sufficiency. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. In this case, there 
is no evidence demonstrating that the preceding associations require outstanding achievements of 
their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or 
an allied one. Moreover, the preceding evidence does not establish that the petitioner's national or 
international acclaim as an acrobat has been sustained since his departure from China. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, 
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 Jield for which classiJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet th~s criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualifL as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualifL as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.3 
The petitioner submitted an article entitled 
 in Time Newspaper Forum. The 
date of this article was not provided as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
Further, there is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that this publication qualifies as 
professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an untitled four-sentence piece about him in the October 26,2004 issue of the 
-- - 
 he author of this material was not provided as required by the plain 
language of thls regulatory criterion. The petitioner also submitted a captioned photograph of the 
petitioner and four others performing on stage in the November 9,2004 issue of the - 
Newspaper. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the submission of "[plublished 
3 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 10 
material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media" including "the 
title, date, and author of the material." The captioned photograph does not meet these requirements. In 
response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a document entitled "Zhengzhou 
official seal, or some other type of certification demonstrating its reliability and sufficiency. The . - 
earlier inconsistency involving a document in which its source was not specified casts doubt 
regarding the reliability and s;fficiency of the 'document submitted 
by the petitioner. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
The petitioner submitted an article entitled he petitioner}." 
The author of the article, the name of the publication, and its date were not provided as required by the 
author of the article was not provided. The record also includes event programs from various 
performances that included the petitioner, but such material does not equate to 'fp]ublished material 
about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media." 
In resDonse to the director's reauest for evidence, the petitioner submitted documents entitled ''m 
The source of these documents is not identified and 
they do not bear organizational letterhead, an official seal, or some other type of certification 
demonstrating their reliability and sufficiency. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. Nevertheless, 
neither the petitioner nor counsel specifies as to which of the preceding articles the information in the 
two documents relates. We note that none of the translated material submitted by the petitioner for 
In this case, aside from the deficiencies specific to the petitioner's individual articles, the record lacks 
evidence (such as objective circulation information fiom an independent source) showing the 
distribution of the preceding publications relative to other national media to demonstrate that the 
submitted articles were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Moreover, as the most recent news media article about the petitioner is from 2005, the preceding 
evidence does not establish that the petitioner's national or international acclaim as an acrobat has 
been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedjeld of specification for which classification is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability 
must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
Page 11 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." The evidence submitted 
to meet this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international a~claim.~ A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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. 
tj 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, counsel states: "The only judging that [the petitioner] does is to choose acrobats for his 
production as needed and train them to perform with the team." The record, however, does not 
include documentary evidence of the petitioner's participation as a judge in this capacity. Without 
documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. 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). Nevertheless, we cannot 
conclude that judging the work of one's subordinates or trainees meets the requirements of this 
regulatory criterion. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2009). (Internal review of 
student work is not indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim and, thus, 
cannot serve to meet this criterion.) 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted various reference letters in support of the petition. We cite representative 
examples here. 
talent in all areas." 
states: "[The petitioner] is an 
outstanding employee and responsible team captain. 
 He is a hardworking and responsible 
employee.. .. I believe [the petitioner] has become one of the most admired successhl acrobat 
today." 
minimal probative value in this proceeding. The signed letter from 
2008, states that the petitioner toured with the 
- -- 
We note that although not binding precedent, this interpretation has been upheld in Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 
(S.D. Tex. March 24, 2006) and All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 *11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 
2005). 
Page 12 
performer. Additional letters submitted on appeal from 
discuss the petitioner's talent, past training regimen, performances, and awards. With 
regard to the petitioner's awards, counsel argues that they also meet this regulatory criterion. The 
evidence pertaining to the petitioner's acrobatic awards has already been addressed under the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory 
criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for awards and 
original contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view these criteria as being 
interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. In this case, 
the record lacks evidence identifying specific original artistic or athletic contributions that have 
significantly influenced or impacted the petitioner's field. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of the preceding reference letters praising his talent as 
an acrobat. Talent in one's field, however, is not necessarily indicative of original contributions of 
major significance. With regard to the petitioner's acrobatic achievements, the reference letters do 
not specify exactly what his original contributions have been, nor is there an explanation indicating 
how any such contributions were of major significance in his field. According to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major 
significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, 
that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has earned the respect and admiration of those 
offering letters of support, the documentation submitted by him does not establish that he has made 
original contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate 
the extent of the petitioner's influence on other acrobats nationally or internationally, nor does it 
show that the field has somehow changed as a result of his work so as to demonstrate the petitioner's 
significant contribution to his field. 
The reference letters submitted by the petitioner, while not without weight, cannot form the 
cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of 
support from the petitioner's personal contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS 
may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 
795. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's 
reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited 
by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence of original contributions of major significance that one would expect of an acrobat who has 
sustained national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the 
petitioner's achievements have been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or 
have otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude 
that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
Page 13 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner's acrobatic programs and competitions meet this criterion. 
This criterion applies to visual artists rather than to performing artists such as the petitioner. The ten 
criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every 
occupation. It is inherent to the petitioner's occupation to perform. Thus, his performances are not 
considered to be artistic exhibitions designed to showcase his art. For instance, the petitioner has not 
identified any events that were orchestrated specifically to exhibit his work. Rather, segments of the 
circuses or acrobatic competitions in which the petitioner participated involved his acrobat troupe. 
The petitioner's participation in acrobatic competitions has previously been addressed under the 
awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(i). Further, there is no evidence establishing that the 
acrobatic performances of the petitioner were consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of the field or that his performances equate to the exclusive showcases of an 
artist's work that are contemplated by this regulation for visual artists. The petitioner's acrobatic 
performances are far more relevant to the "commercial successes in the performing arts" criterion at 
8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(x) and will be further addressed there. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for thls criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner "performed in a leading role as the star performer for the 
The record, however, does not include evidence showing that this circus has 
a distinguished reputation. Counsel's claim that the s "as distinguished 'as a 
circus can be" is not sufficient. As previously discus ions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533, 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 
I&N Dec. at 1, 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 503, 506. Further, while the 
signed letter from dated May 29,2008, states that he "would not hesitate to employ" the 
petitioner again, it does not indicate that the petitioner's role for the as 
leading or critical. The petitioner's evidence fails to demonstrate how his role differentiated him from 
the other acrobatic performers, let alone the entertainers who performed different circus acts. For 
example, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's name frequently received top billing in the 
circus or that its popularity increased when he was known to be performing. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he was responsible for the su&ess or 
standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Page 14 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner "won a 
at had attached to it . . . pnze money of 30,000 Yuan." Tlus evidence has 
already been addressed under the prizes and awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i). Moreover, 
the record does not include evidence of the petitioner's receipt of 50,000 Yuan in prize money. 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 (Comm. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972)). While the petitioner 
certificate does not state that the petitioner received any prize money or indicate how the money was 
divided among the nine performers. Finally, the petitioner has not established that winning prize 
money at an art festival equates to earning "a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services." 
Counsel further argues that payment for the petitioner's travel expenses relating to his acrobatic tour 
in cities throughout North America represents additional evidence for this criterion. The record, 
however, does not include documentation of these expenses. As previously discussed, the 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 
533,534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 1,3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
at 503, 506. Nevertheless, the petitioner has not established that having one's travel expenses paid 
equates to earning "a high salary or other significantly hlgh remuneration for services." 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence showing 
that he has "commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation 
to others in thefield." [Emphasis added.] The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that 
he has received compensation that was significantly high in relation to others in his field. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
On appeal, counsel states that the letter from is evidence of 
. . 
the petitioner's commercial success. This regulatory criterion calls for commercial successes in the 
form of "sales" or "receipts"; simply submitting a letter which expresses pinion 
regarding the petitioner's talent cannot meet the plain language of this regulatory criterion. The record 
does not include evidence of documented "sales" or "receipts" showing that the petitioner achieved 
commercial successes in the performing arts in a manner consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. For example, there is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner's performances consistently drew record crowds, were regular sell-out performances, or 
resulted in greater audiences than other similar performances that did not feature the petitioner. 
Page 15 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that,he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence 
to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2). Moreover, the petitioner 
has not submitted evidence showing that his acclaim as an acrobat has been sustained. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the 
record does not include evidence of nationally or internationally acclaimed achievements and 
recognition in recent years. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he is in the United States as a P-1 
nonimmigrant, a visa classification that requires him to perform "with an entertainment group that 
has been recognized internationally as being outstanding in the discipline for a sustained and 
substantial period of time." See section 214(c)(4)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1184(c)(4)(B). While 
USCIS approved at least one P-1 nonirnmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior 
approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if 
similarly phrased standard. Each case must decided on a case-by-case basis on the evidence of record. 
It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 
nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply 
approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas AM 
Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals 
do not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of 
the alien's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Cornm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest 
that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomey, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant 
petition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a 
service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. IiVS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 
1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Page 16 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself 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 is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. tj 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have 
in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka 
v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.