dismissed EB-1A Case: Airport Operations

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: 
LIN 06 219 50737 
 JUN 1 7 2009 
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: 
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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
cf=- n F. Grissom 
Acting 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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in airport operations. 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(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 ths subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics whlch 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. $ 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. 
This petition, filed on July 19, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in airport operations. 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. 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. 
§ 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 field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 
204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner did not initially submit any documentary evidence for this criterion. However, in 
response to the director's Request For Evidence ("RFE"), the petitioner submitted a Diploma of 
Merit, issued on October 12,2006 by the General Consulate of El Salvador in Florida. The Diploma 
was given for "standing out in commercial aviation in El Salvador" and was submitted without a 
certified translation. In addition, the petitioner provided six different pictures of recognition awards 
from his employer, TACA International Airlines, with captions translating three of the awards into 
English. However, the translations failed to fully translate the inscription on the awards and they 
were not certified as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3). An award from JFK Airport in recognition 
of 25 years of excellent service was also provided. No new evidence for this criterion was submitted 
on appeal. 
The director did not find that the evidence provided was sufficient to satisfy this criterion. We 
concur, after a review of the entire record, that the evidence fails to establish the petitioner meets this 
criterion. The record lacks proof to demonstrate that the awards received by the petitioner constitute 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in his field, such as supporting evidence 
showing the prestige associated with receiving the awards or some other evidence consistent with 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 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. Moreover, the record also lacks general information about whether the petitioner was 
competing against other employees for his awards from his employer or other aviation professionals 
for the other awards (such as the award criteria, the area from where participants were drawn, the 
number of entrants, or the percentage of entrants who earned some type of recognition). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Page 4 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which 
classiJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orjields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the 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. 
The petitioner initially submitted several reference letters to establish his membership in various 
organizations. In a letter from the International Air Transport Association ("IATA"), dated January 
26,2006, the Regional Vice President stated that the petitioner, 
"has integrated his thorough knowledge in the airport operation field with his ability 
to be as a airline delegate (TACA representative) in 2002 IATA ground handling 
council in Las Vegas working together with vendors and other airline worldwide 
delegates (370 airlines) and Airports, under the auspices of IATA airport service 
committee ASC all together developed those new standards and to update the new 
IATA Ground handling agreements and standards SGHA January 2004." 
In addition to this letter, the petitioner provided pages from IATA's website, www.iata.org, detailing 
the history of the IATA trade organization, its goals and policies. In the petitioner's initial brief, he 
also claims to be a member of the Airline Association in El Salvador ("ASLA") for more than a 
decade. However, the only proof of membership appears to be a recommendation letter from the 
President of ASLA, which did not state that the petitioner was a member. 
In response to the WE, the petitioner claimed in his brief to be a member of IATA, stating that his 
membership was confirmed through the above-referenced reference letter. The letter, however, only 
stated he is "a recognized authority in the Airline Business" and did not mention his membership in 
the organization. His brief also stated that he is IATA's TACA delegate, an IATA council member, 
a LACSA representative and a North American Airport Network member and a member of the Inter 
Ai ort worldwide council. However, the only new evidence provided was a letter from - 
dh a member of the Airline Management Council Board, dated October 16, 2007, stating that 
the petitioner was an active member of the Airline Management Council since 2003. The petitioner 
also provided two emails with meetings and news updates from the American Association of Airport 
Executives ("AAAE"), as well as an internet printout from its website, www.aaae.org. The internet 
site explained that the professional membership requirements "consist of a management paper or 
case study written on some phase of airport management, a comprehensive multiple-choice exam 
and an oral examination on a level comparable to other professional certificates." After these 
requirements are fulfilled, an "Accredited Airport Executive is admitted to the membership as an 
executive member and may use the initials A.A.E." after his name. 
In his decision dated February 12, 2008, the director did not find the petitioner had provided enough 
evidence to satisfy this criterion. The petitioner argued in his appeal brief that he belonged to IATA 
and made many contributions through his involvement in this group. The petitioner also submitted a 
copy of the Current Standard Ground Handling Agreements ("SGHA") of 2004, which he says that 
he developed through his involvement in various councils. However, the SGHA is written in 
Spanish, and no English translation was provided. Other than the SGHA, no new information was 
provided on appeal for this category. 
We agree with the director's finding that the record lacks independent documentary evidence to 
prove the petitioner's membership in any of the aforementioned organizations. The petitioner only 
provided three reference letters, and one of the letters from IATA fails to even directly state that the 
petitioner is a member of the organization. Even assuming the petitioner proved his membership 
sufficiently through reference letters, the petitioner's submissions including the three reference 
letters, the internet pages from the IATA and AAAE websites, and the SGHA, fail to state the 
requirements of membership (such as membership bylaws or official admission requirements) or state 
what types of outstanding achievements, if any, are necessary for membership. Although the AAAE 
website provides the requirements for membership, the information provided fails to show that such 
requirements represent outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in the petitioner's field. 
In addition, the record also lacks evidence demonstrating that membership in any of the above 
organizations is judged by recognized national or international experts in the field. 
As such, 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 jeld 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 this 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 qualify 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 or broadcast, 
or from a publication printed in a language that the vast majority of the country's population cannot 
comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but 
would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community 
papers. l 
The petitioner initially submitted two articles without English translations, one that was published by 
his employer, TACA, and the other, an editorial, without a publication source or complete date. In 
response to the RFE, counsel argues that the petitioner 
 this criterion through 
"publications from major aviation media sources detailing 
 celebrated career as an 
"Executive Airport Director" that it purports to have submitted. The actual evidence provided in an 
attempt to support this claim included a copy of the same article published by TACA in 1986 
- - 
entitldd "We can go as far as we want to; 
 Employee of the Year of TACA-SALl85." 
Unlike in the petitioner's initial submission, the petitioner submitted a translation of the article, yet 
failed to certify it. In addition, the petitioner submitted another article from Nuestro Grupo, dated 
April 2006, entitled, "Successful Career in TACA." The accompanying translation was likewise not 
certified. No new evidence to support this criterion was submitted on appeal. 
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. None of the preceding articles were certified by the 
translator as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). The AAO is, therefore, unable to determine whether 
the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. Accordingly, these articles are not probative and will 
not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. Moreover, none of the articles contain the author of 
the material as required by 8 C.F.R. $204,5(h)(3)(iii). 
Finally, even if the evidence without the requisite certified translations were considered, there is no 
evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that any of the preceding articles submitted by the 
petitioner were printed in professional or major trade publications or some other form of major media. 
In fact, the petitioner only submitted a publication name in English for one of the articles, and that 
article was published by the petitioner's employer, TACA. It is unclear whether the article appeared in 
an internal company newsletter or elsewhere. Without further evidence, this publication cannot be 
equated with a professional or major trade publication or a form of major media. 
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 specijcation for which classzjication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 
1 
 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. 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight 
given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends 
on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. 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. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner did not initially submit evidence specifically for this criterion. In response to the 
RFE, counsel for the petitioner asserted the petitioner has "participated in events, conferences, and 
discussions of distinguished reputation in the Aviation field" and that he has "frequently participated 
as an expert speaker in the area." The following was submitted to support these claims and as 
evidence of this criterion: 
1. Two emails with "Passenger Terminal Expo 2008" in the subject field written by the 
conference director to the petitioner. One of the emails stated, "we definitely want to include 
the first proposal of yours in the conference, however, I [she] must have the attached form 
completed and returned;" 
2. A flyer regarding the Passenger Terminal Expo 2008 in Amsterdam announcing the keynote 
speaker of the convention (who was not the petitioner) and making an open call for papers; 
3. A pamphlet for a convention called Network 2006, held in San Antonio. The pamphlet lists 
all the speakers, and the petitioner was not on the list. It indicated only that the petitioner 
was an airline delegate from TACA; 
4. A letter from the Airline Business President that invited the petitioner to attend Network 
2008 in San Diego; 
5. An email in Spanish, without an English translation, regarding a Network Latin American 
Convention in Mexico; 
6. A flyer regarding the Network Latin America conference in Mexico that generally provides 
information regarding the program, and does not mention the petitioner; 
7. A flyer for the Inter Airport Europe Conference in 2005 in Munich, Germany, that lists all 
the speakers and the petitioner was not one of them; 
8. A description was provided for the following three Items (9-ll), which noted that the 
petitioner "served as one of the IATA council members who reviewed, modified and 
approved the final ground handling standard agreement" and that "the work reviewed was 
submitted by all participants and the council judged the work and approved the amendments 
and new Items that were included." 
9. A letter from IATA stating his involvement in the organization and in developing the SGHA 
(a copy of the agreement was provided); 
10. A description of the IATA organization; and 
11. Various pieces of evidence attempting to establish the petitioner's membership as an Air 
Carrier representative at Los Angeles Airport. 
The director did not find the evidence provided was sufficient to satisfy this criterion, and no new 
evidence was provided on appeal. 
None of the items above provide evidence that the petitioner was a judge, or even that he was a 
speaker at a conference, as the petitioner's counsel claimed. Item 1 was not sufficient to support that 
the petitioner was a judge or speaker as the email did not confirm his participation in the conference. 
Rather, the email remained contingent upon his resubmitting documents to the conference director. 
Further, even if he resubmitted his proposal, it is unclear whether he would have been a speaker or 
just would have had his proposal incorporated into the conference in some other way. Additionally, 
the portions of the emails allegedly written by the petitioner do not have the caption indicating when 
the emails were sent by the petitioner and appear to be cut and pasted on the email from the 
conference director. Therefore, these emails purportedly written by the petitioner are inherently 
unreliable. Items 2, 3,4, 6 and 7 provide information on various conferences. However, they do not 
establish that the petitioner's role in the conferences included anything other than possibly 
attendance. Item 5 was not translated as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), and therefore it cannot 
be considered. Items 9 and 10 were submitted, as explained in Item 8, to establish that the petitioner 
reviewed and judged the amendments to the final ground handling agreement. However, the 
petitioner's involvement in the review and development of regulations for ground handling was not 
confirmed through the evidence. There was no evidence to establish whose work he reviewed nor 
was there any proof that the petitioner was specifically involved in reviewing anyone's work. The 
letter provided only indicates he "developed" new standards, and does not confirm he actually was 
involved in reviewing the work of others. Item 11 may evidence his membership as a carrier 
representative, but does not establish that he was a judge in order to fulfill this criterion. 
Even assuming the petitioner was involved as a panel member at any of the above-referenced 
conventions or as a judge of work with regard to ground standards, the record lacks evidence 
establishing the level of prestige associated with participating in these conventions or judging the 
amendments of the ground standards, the requirements necessary to become a judge, and the names 
of the participants he evaluated andlor their levels of expertise or other evidence of his judging that 
is indicative of this highly restrictive classification. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner did not originally claim this criterion. However, in response to the RFE, counsel 
claimed that the petitioner contributed through the guidelines he created for airport security and 
procedure including; TACNLACSA Ground Handling Handbook, Emergency Response Manual 
TACA and LASCA, The Key Issues in the Emergency Response 2004, and APIS Implementation 
Working with US Customs & Immigration. These guidelines could not be located in the record. 
The actual evidence in the record provided to support this criterion included a picture of the 
petitioner and former Governor Jeb Bush during a celebration of Independence Day in 2006. It was 
accompanied by an article regarding the event, which did not mention the petitioner and did not 
Page 9 
discuss anything related to the petitioner's field. Therefore, this evidence did not support the 
proposition that the petitioner made a contribution of major significance in his field. In addition, a 
power point presentation, prepared by the petitioner for TACA airlines for negotiations with U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection over landing rights, was submitted. However, other than creating 
the power point document, it is unclear whether the petitioner solely contributed to this document. 
And, even if he alone prepared this document, there is no supplemental evidence to show this 
presentation represents a major contribution in his field. We additionally considered the several 
letters of recommendation that were submitted, although not specifically for this criterion, to be 
potential evidence. However, none of these letters demonstrated what, if any impact the petitioner 
had made in his field that could be synonymous with making a contribution of "major significance." 
Moreover, none of the evidence illustrated that the petitioner's position as an Airport Operations 
Director conveyed him national or international acclaim or that his participation in negotiations or 
other aspects of the airline industry made a contribution of major significance to his field. 
As discussed above, the petitioner has failed to establish how his work has influenced his field and 
how it is considered to have been a contribution of major significance to his field. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S authorship of scholarly articles in the $el4 in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
In counsel's initial brief, he claims that the petitioner has recently published the following 
publications; TACAILACSA Ground Handling Handbook, Emergency Response Manual TACA and 
LASCA, The Key Issues in the Emergency Response 2004, and APIS Implementation Working with 
US Customs & Immigration. However, none of the evidence provided corresponds with these 
publication titles. In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided the following as evidence of this 
criterion: 
1. A letter from the petitioner, dated May 30, 1999, requesting approval for a procedures 
manual and an accompanying approval for "Procedimentos de Rampa;" 
2. Two additional letters and one approval document written in Spanish with no English 
translation; 
3. A Memorandum, dated March 3,2000, regarding the new ramp procedures manual; 
4. An uncertified, partial translation of the Ramp Operation Manual written by the petitioner 
that states its approval by TACA International, AVITECA S.A. and LACSA; 
5. The Ramp Procedures Manual written in Spanish and partially in English; 
6. A letter from Author House, dated October 23, 2007, indicating that it is anticipating the 
petitioner's book, "The Messenger of Hope: Chronicles of a Holy Journey," will be published 
on November 23,2007; 
7. An article written by the petitioner in La Estrella de Nicaragua entitled, "Security 
Inspection-Carryon Bags at Airports in Your Next Trip," accompanied by a partial, 
uncertified translation. The article was also purportedly published by the government of El 
Salvador, but the article provided to support this did not contain a source; and 
8. An Airline Emergency Planning and Response Management Assignment, dated February 5, 
2004, accompanied by a certificate stating that the petitioner passed the Airline Emergency 
Planning and Response Management course with distinction. 
In his decision, the director found the evidence to be insufficient to fulfill this criterion. On appeal, 
the petitioner provided his book, "The Messenger of Hope: Chronicles of a Holy Journey." The 
book indicates it was first published on December 1 1,2007. 
The book provided on appeal was published after his petition was filed, and therefore it may not be 
considered. A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after 
the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Comm. 1971). Although the petitioner provided notice of the future publication of his book in 
Item 6, the actual publication of the book did not occur until after the petition was filed. 
The petitioner failed to provide certified translations for Items 4, 5 and 7 as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.2(b)(3). Moreover, the translations in Items 5 and 7 were only partial translations. Without the 
proper complete, certified translations, the AAO is unable to confirm the accuracy of the petitioner's 
statements regarding his claimed published materials. Accordingly, these articles are not considered 
probative and may not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. Further, a translation was not 
provided at all for Item 2. 
The petitioner also failed to submit evidence which demonstrates that Items 4, 5 and 7 were 
published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The only accompanying 
evidence provided were letters confirming the approval of the Ramp Operation Manual (Items 1 and 
2). However, these letters did not address where the Manual was published or that it was published 
in a professional or major trade publication or other major media. Further, it appears that Item 8 was 
not published, but instead was an assignment completed by the petitioner in order to gain credit for 
the course entitled, Airline Emergency Planning and Response Management. The certificate 
indicating the petitioner passed the course with distinction, and the fact that the work was referred to 
as an "assignment" appears to demonstrate this is the case. 
As such, 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. 
In the petitioner's response to the RFE, counsel claims that the petitioner's position as Director of 
Logistics for TACA Airlines during the Pope's three visits to North America and that his service as 
Director of Airport Operations for TACA Airlines would qualify him to meet this criterion. The 
petitioner submitted the following evidence relevant to this criterion: 
1. A letter from, Apostolic Nuncio in El Salvador, dated December 1, 2005, 
which states that the petitioner was an asset to the Pope's visits in 2002, 1996 and 1983; 
Page 11 
2. A power point presentation by TACA Airlines, dated June 30,2002, entitled "Pope John Paul 
11: Chronicles of trip to: Toronto, Guatemala and Mexico; 
3. A power point presentation with Oakland Airport written on the bottom right hand side, 
undated (unclear whether this is part of Item 4); 
4. A power point presentation written by the petitioner, dated May 12, 2005, entitled "Oakland 
Airport: Operational Field Audit Technical Study;" 
5. The petitioner's curriculum vitae was provided to prove that he has served as the Director of 
Airline Operations for years; and 
6. Several reference letters which confirm the petitioner's involvement in the Pope's visits and 
his work in the airline industry. 
The director did not find the record contained sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion. 
Nonetheless, no new evidence was provided for this criterion on appeal. 
In order to establish that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or 
establishment with a distinguished reputation, he must establish the nature of his role within the 
organization or establishment and its reputation. The position should also 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. In this instance, the petitioner claims that his position as a Director 
of Airline Operations and as Director of Logistics for the Pope's visits evidence that he has 
performed a leading role. The evidence regarding the Papal visits demonstrates that the petitioner 
took a leading role in his preparing the airport for the Pope's visit. However, the evidence 
addressing the petitioner's work as a Director of Airline Operations, including Item 5 and 6, only 
address the petitioner's specific role within the organization and details his work and 
accomplishments, and does not establish he has played a leading or critical role. 
The regulation also requires that documentation be submitted by the petitioner to establish that the 
various organizations, in which he purports to have performed leadership roles, have a distinguished 
reputation. Similar to the aforementioned reasoning regarding the title of a position, the name 
recognition associated with a particular organization or entity is not tantamount to a distinguished 
reputation. The petitioner failed to submit any evidence demonstrating that TACA Airlines enjoys a 
distinguished reputation. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the reference letters submitted on the petitioner's behalf are 
comparable evidence of the petitioner's extraordinary ability as an Airport Operations Director. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the 
ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language 
precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no evidence that 
eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria 
specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to meet three 
of the regulatory criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(4) does not 
allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
The reference letters submitted in support of this petition have already been addressed. Further, 
there is no evidence showing that the documentation the petitioner requests re-evaluation of as 
comparable evidence constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. While reference letters can provide useful 
information about an alien's qualifications or help in assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters 
are not a substitute for objective evidence of the alien's achievements and recognition as required by the 
statute and regulations. The nonexistence of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, the classification sought requires "extensive documentation'' of 
sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 
1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations 
implementing the statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens 
of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more 
extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 
5, 1991). Primary evidence of achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than the 
opinions of one's professional acquaintances. 
In this case, the petitioner has 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. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 8 557(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. 
US. 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. 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.