dismissed EB-1A Case: Agriculturist

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY A 6 
f 
office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: MAR 1 6 2006 
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 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
u 
9 Robert P. Wiernann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 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. $ 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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. 
8 204.5(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. 8 204.5(h)(3). 
This petition, filed on May 4, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an 
agriculturist. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. According to Part 3 
of the Form 1-140 petition, the petitioner has been residing in the United States since October 1, 1999.' Given 
the length of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than 
five years), it is reasonable to expect him to have earned national acclaim in the United States during that 
time. The petitioner has had ample time to establish a reputation in this country. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted a signed statement regarding his qualifications as an 
agriculturist. This document, however, was not sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's sustained national or 
international acclaim, or that his achievements have been recognized in his field of expertise. On June 22, 
I 
 The record includes a copy of the petitioner's Chinese passport which was issued in New York on February 14, 2000. 
Page 3 
2005, the director issued a notice of intent to deny informing the petitioner of the deficiencies in the record 
and requesting that he submit evidence pertaining to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner failed to respond to the director's notice of intent to deny. Therefore, on November 4, 2005, 
the director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had not established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
On appeal, the petitioner now submits evidence pertaining to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner was put on notice of required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the 
record before the visa petition was adjudicated. The petitioner failed to submit the requested evidence and 
now submits it on appeal. The AAO, however, will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. 
See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 
1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence to be considered, he should have submitted the 
documents in response to the director's notice of intent to deny. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need 
not and does not consider the sufficiency of the evidence submitted on appeal. The appeal will be adjudicated 
based on the record of proceeding before the director. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied 
to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 the 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. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires "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." The record includes no such evidence. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
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. 3 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.