dismissed EB-1A Case: Agricultural And Natural Resource Management

(b)(6)
DATE : SEP 0 8 2014 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529- 2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision . The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-prec edent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, resp ectively . Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief , Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1)(A) as an agricultural and natural 
resource management specialist. 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. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim " and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) . The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
The petitioner's priority date established by the petition filing date is October 8, 2013. On October 17, 
2013, the director issued the petitioner a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the petitioner's 
response to the RFE , the director issued his decision on November 26, 2013. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director ' s ultimate determination that 
the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the classification sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states , in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability.-- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education, business , or 
athletics which has been demonstrated 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 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively· 
the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. /d.; 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the evaluation of evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), 
the court concluded that while users may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent 
"final merits determination ." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry , the court stated that "the proper 
procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which we did)," and if the petitioner did not 
submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as we concluded)." Jd. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, we will review the evidence under the 
plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has not satisfied the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
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 allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
While the director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion, the record does not support this 
finding. We conduct appellate review on a de novo basis. Our de novo authority is well recognized by 
the federal courts. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
This 
criterion requires not only that the petitioner was selected to serve as a judge, but also that the 
petitioner is able to produce evidence that he actually participated as a judge. The phrase "a judge" 
implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally, these duties must have been directly judging the work of 
others in the same or an allied field in which the petitioner seeks an immigrant classification within the 
present petition. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner initially claimed eligibility under this criterion based on: 
• His work with a tripartite evaluation he organized in 
• His implementation and management of the 
funded 
in November 1996; 
• His idea of a Tripartite evaluation, as a panel member and main presenter at the 
• His assistance with the ; and 
" project; 
• Through his work on a steering committee in which he was a member of the panel to assess the 
work on biological nitrogen fixation on the encompassmg 
several countries. 
Regarding each of these claims, the petitioner provides his personal statement that describes how he 
performed duties that would satisfy this criterion's requirements. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' I Comm'r 1972)). 
As evidence of his work on the tripartite evaluation in November 1996, the petitioner provides 
photographs with captions from an unidentified source, and a foreign language article entitled "A 
Conclusive Test at ' that lacks a certified translation into English. Regarding the photographs 
2 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
of the petitioner at the 1996 event, such evidence does not demonstrate that the petitioner actually 
served as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field. In reference to the foreign 
language article, the translation of the foreign publication does not comply with the terms of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3): 
Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be 
accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as 
complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to 
translate from the foreign language into English. 
The petitioner certified that he completed the translations to the best of his knowledge, but does not 
certify them as complete and does not certify his competence to translate. The translation also does not 
contain the publication's name; however, the name on the foreign language document indicates the 
publication's name is The translation also does not reflect the article's publication date, 
although the foreign language document indicates it was in 1996. Consequently, this foreign language 
document has no evidentiary or probative value. Regardless, the article does not establish that the 
petitioner's involvement in this project involved participating as a judge of the work of others in his 
field or an allied field. The article explains that funded the agricultural development 
project that is implementing in While it does state that the petitioner's team 
"proceeded to the thoroughly [sic] evaluation of the project," it does not provide any details on this 
evaluation such that it establishes that it involved participating as a judge of the work of others in the 
petitioner's field or an allied field. 
Regardino-thP. netitionP.r's d::~im rP-lMin to nroiect. the netitioner provides letters 
fro _ Mr. Coordinator, indicates 
that the petitioner was the assistant coordinator, and he praises the petitioner's managerial skills, 
but he does not discuss the petitioner's duties of judging the work of others in his field or in a related 
field. The letter from Mr. President of . is addressed to the petitioner and congratulates 
him on his successful evaluation of the project. Mr. acknowledges that the petitioner 
created the tripartite evaluation idea; however, Mr. does not describe the idea or otherwise 
explain the manner in which the petitioner performed the duties of a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an allied field of endeavor as required by the regulation. 
Regarding the petitioner's assistance with the he provides an email from to the 
petitioner. Mr. ; email does not indicate that Mr. holds a position of authority within the 
nor does it establish that the petitioner performed any judging duties in line with this criterion's 
requirements. Specifically, Mr. expresses his appreciation to the petitioner for "delivering such a 
positive and dynamic vision for the development of the ; management plan." 
Mr. asserts that the proposal represents a "collective determination from the 
and its 
partners." The petitioner provided the proposed management plan which "lays out the Scope of 
Work of the proposed planning process to develop an Interim Management Plan (IMP) for the 
The plan does not name the petitioner or his role in developing this plan or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
otherwise suggest the petitioner's participation in developing this plan involved participating as a judge 
of the work of others in his field or an allied field. 
Regarding the petitioner's work on biological nitrogen fixation on the 
the petitioner provides a foreign language article titled, _ 
The petitioner's translation into English does not comply with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3) for the same reasons discussed above and also lacks the publication name and date (Le 
Solei/ and 1991 according to the foreign language document). Although the article reflects the 
petitioner's involvement with this project by raising questions that impact how researchers need to 
invest in nitrogen fixation, it does not establish that the petitioner performed as a judge of the work of 
others within his field or an allied field within this project. 
A review of the remaining evidence on record, which includes news articles and evidence relating to 
other evidentiary criteria, does not reveal that the petitioner actually participated as a judge of others in 
his or in a related field. For example, the undated letter from . Senior Agricultural 
Advisor for and former states 
that the petitioner "came up with a creative, yet sensitive way to conduct the project's mid-term 
assessment by designing what was referred to as a 'Tripartite Evaluation." ' Mr. _ does not, 
however, state that the petitioner performed these evaluations. Rather, Mr. explains that the 
evaluation method involved multiple parties, including the host government, the donor and the project 
technical staff. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contribution s of major significance in the field. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned his claims under this 
criterion. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 
09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the 
plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, including two articles published in United Nations publications, to 
establish that he meets this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional 
arguments. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned his claims under this 
criterion. Sepulveda 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
This criterion anticipates that a leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall 
organizational hierarchy and that it be accompanied by the role's matching duties. The petitioner also 
has the responsibility to demonstrate that he actually performed the duties listed relating to the leading 
role. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the organization or the 
establishment's activities. The petitioner's performance in this role should establish whether the role 
was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. The petitioner must demonstrate that the 
organizations or establishments (in the plural) have a distinguished reputation. While neither the 
regulation nor precedent speak to what constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam-Webster's online 
dictionary defines distinguished as, "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence."3 Dictionaries are 
not of themselves evidence, but they may be referred to as aids to the memory and understanding of the 
court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 306 (1893). Therefore, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate 
that the organizations or establishments claimed under this criterion are marked by eminence, 
distinction, excellence, or an equivalent reputation. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all 
of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate that any of his roles for various 
organizations or establishments met the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner only 
identifies one qualifying organization under this criterion, and provides 
several letters that he also submitted to the director in the previous proceeding. As the petitioner did not 
contest the director's determination relating to any of the other previously claimed organizations or 
establishments, he has abandoned the claims relating to these entities within this proceeding. 
Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) (where the alien abandoned his 
eligibility claims by failing to make a substantive argument regarding the issues in his appellate brief). 
Based on the evidence on record, the petitioner demonstrates that he has performed in a leading or 
critical role for The letters on record that discuss 
relate primarily to the work that he performed for the organization. Howev~ the 
petitioner does not provide any independent, objective evidence or a description of how 
has achieved a distinguished reputation. The appellate brief describes the 
3 
See http:ij\vww.merri am-webster.com /dictionary /distinguished, accessed on August 26, 2014, a copy of which 
is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
organization's history and future plans. As stated above, going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. at 190). Moreover, the organization's half century history of providing aid to those in need 
demonstrates its duration and success. This histor , however, falls far short of demonstrating that the 
organization enjoys a distinguished reputation. . Vice President for Human Resources at 
asserts that the organization "distinguishes itself through its unique 
approach to partnership and capacity building, a commitment to learning and continuous improvement, 
and a reputation as a res onsible steward offunder resources." Country Director for 
funded project. Dr. 
Center, confirms that 
confirms that worked on a 
Deputy Chief, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Science and Decisions 
has partnered with USGS on a project. Although 
is an organization that addresses complex problems related to economic 
development and other societal needs, there is no presumption that every non-governmental 
organization (NGO) working on government-funded projects with beneficial goals enjoys 
a 
distinguished re utation. The petitioner did not submit, for example, documentary evidence 
demonstrating distinguished reputation in the field of resource 
management, such as, but not limited to, trade media coverage of the company. 
Even if the petitioner had demonstrated that he performed in a leading or critical role for _ 
this role is only for one organization or establishment. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the petitioner to have performed in a leading . or 
critical role for "organizations or establishments" in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Thus, we can infer that the plural in the 
remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
The appellate brief requests that we consider the petitioner's "entire submission" as comparable 
evidence because the petitioner, unlike an artist or scientist, cannot "point to a novel product or 
performance." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows an alien to submit comparable evidence 
if the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to his occupation. It is the petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory criteria are not 
readily applicable to his occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective 
evidence required at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Notably, several of the criteria "are written in terms 
broadly applicable even within the business community." 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898 (Nov. 29, 1991). 
Where an alien is simply unable to meet or submit sufficient documentary evidence of at least three of 
these criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the 
submission of comparable evidence. As the petitioner has not attempted to demonstrate that the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to his occupation or explained 
what evidence is comparable to the listed criteria and how it is comparable to those criteria, the 
petitioner may not rely on comparable evidence to qualify for this immigrant classification. 
C. Summary 
The petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While we conclude that the evidence is 
not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of the field or 
sustained national or international acclaim, we need not explain that conclusion in a final merits 
determination. 4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 
The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 P.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination 
as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of 
the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.P.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).