dismissed EB-1A Case: Architectural Engineering And Calligraphy

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Ibfl~Wing deta deleted to 
prevent clearly unwma 
hvmbn of personal Nwcy 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: SEP 2 6 2008 
WAC 03 244 52 162 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: = 
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. !j 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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center. The petitioner filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), which remanded the 
matter to the director for further action and consideration. The director again denied the petition and the matter is 
now before the AAO on certification. The director's decision will be affirmed. 
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. 9 1153(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. 
On certification, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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. 
the State Bar of California with charges pending and is now prohibited &om practicing law in California. Accordingly, the 
petitioner shall be considered unrepresented. See 8 C.F.R. 
 103.2(a)(3). 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on August 26, 2003, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
an architectural engineer and calligrapher. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5@)(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. 
9 204.5@)(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. 9 204.5@)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. A certificate dated October 30, 2000 stating: "This certificate is issued to encourage the person 
whose remarkable success in the course of construction of material and humanity civilization in 
China has been recorded in the Series of Chinses [sic] Contemporary Enterprising Elites 
published by China Esperanto publishing House." 
2. A certificate dated January 1, 2000 stating: "Mr/Ms [the petitioner]: You are admitted to the 
project of the 21" Century Talent's Bank." 
3. An undated Honor Certificate stating: 
 "[The petitioner]: THIS IS CERTIFY [sic] THAT 
CONFORMS TO THE SEL ECTING [sic] CONDITION OF 'THE BEST CHOICE OF 
CHINESE EXCELLENTLY EXPERTISE"' 
4. An Award Certificate stating that the petitioner received the "Best Award in the Civil Cup 
National Pen & Ballpoint Pen Writing Contest of 1987." 
5. "Certificate of Award" issued by the "Nanjing City Fundamental Development Committee" 
stating that the petitioner obtained "1" Place in Wall Building" at the "1979 Annual Performing 
Techniques Competition" in the "Nanjing Area." 
6. A certificate dated June 1984 stating that the petitioner was honored as "Nanjing best constructor" 
in the Nanjing Top Engrneering Contest of 1983. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to CIS 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 fiom the foreign language into 
English. The English language translations of the preceding award certificates were not certified by the 
translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3).~ Further, items 5 and 6 above reflect local 
2 
 In the AAO's August 4, 2005 decision and the director's October 22, 2007 notice of certification, the petitioner was 
specifically informed that the English language translations he previously submitted were deficient. Attached to the 
Page 4 
recognition rather than national or international recognition. With regard to items 1 through 6 above, the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence demonstrating the significance of his awards. The plain language of the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 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. 
In this case, the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that his awards commanded national or 
international recognition beyond the presenting organizations consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. For example, there is supporting evidence showing that the recipients of the preceding 
honors were announced in major media or in some other manner consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
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 classzjication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
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's initial documentation addressing this criterion indicated that he served as a technical staff 
member of the Chinese Embassy in Uganda in 1992, was appointed a research fellow by the China Enterprise 
Culture Improvement Association Education Committee in 2003, was certified as an engineer by the Nanjing 
Construction Project Technical Occupation Appraisal Committee in 1994, and became a member of the Natural 
Science Professional Department of the Nanjing Science Association in 1988. 
On certification, the petitioner submits documents indicating that he was admitted to membership in the 
World Peace Alliance Foundation in June 2004 and the China Beijing Modern Collection Book Painting and 
Calligraphy Arts Research Institute in May 2004. The petitioner was admitted to these organizations 
subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
$5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider this evidence in this proceeding. 
The petitioner also submits what is alleged to be a membership credential allegedly issued to him by the 
China Painting and Calligraphy Arts Committee on August 20, 2003. The uncertified English language 
petitioner's November 11, 2007 letter responding to the director's notice of certification was a document signed by 
- 
stating that she "translated all [the petitioner's] documents from Chinese . . . to English with . . . 
pro esslona translation knowledge." With regard to the English language translations submitted by the petitioner on 
certification, this document signed by 
 does not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
 103.2(b)(3). 
Page 5 
translation of this document identifies the petitioner's sex as "Female." Further, the petitioner's November 
11,2007 letter states that the "China Painting and Calligraphy Arts Committee was established in June 2005." 
This statement is not consistent with the date of issuance (August 20, 2003) of his membership credential. 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). 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 591. 
With regard to the organizations in which the petitioner claims membership, there is no evidence (such as 
membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that they require outstanding achievements 
of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied 
one. Further, the English language translations of the preceding membership documents were not certified by 
the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien Ir work in the field 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. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distnbution, 
unlike small local community papers.3 
On certification, the petitioner submits a letter stating that he was selected for inclusion in World Chinese 
Prominent Contribution Experts Name Dictionary, a certificate stating that his work was recorded in the 
Series of Chinses [sic] Contemporary Enterprising Elites, a certificate stating that he was admitted to the 
project of the 21" Century Talent S Bank, and a notice reflecting that his biography was selected for inclusion 
in Chinese Hun Mo Arts Treasure House. The petitioner also submits three notices informing him of his 
selection for inclusion in Modern Outstanding Chinese, Chinese Celebrities, and Divine Land Figure. These 
three notices conclude by requesting that the petitioner reply to the publishers' editorial offices after 
reviewing his entry. None of the English language translations of the preceding documents were certified by 
the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3). Further, there is no evidence showing 
the actual published material about the petitioner and its date of publication. Nor is there evidence (such as 
circulation statistics) showing that the preceding books qualify as professional or major trade publications or 
some other form of major media. Finally, we cannot conclude that the petitioner's limited biographic entry into a 
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. 
sizable tome would constitute qualifjing published material about him and his work. Appearing as one of 
hundreds or thousands of successful individuals in a frequently published biographical directory is not 
evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. 
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 alliedJield of speciJication for which classification is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5@)(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 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. 9 204.5@)(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. $204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner submitted a July 4, 2004 letter from the culture Research Institute stating that he 
was an appraiser of "outstanding ecology architecture, green building, and Fengshui works in 2001." The 
English language translation of this document was not certified by the translator as required by the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2@)(3). Further, there is no evidence showing the level of acclaim associated with serving 
as an appraiser or the means by which the petitioner was selected to participate. Nor is there evidence 
showing the specific work judged by the petitioner, the names of those he evaluated, or documentation of his 
assessments. Without substantive evidence showing that the petitioner judged other professionals in his field 
in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field, we cannot 
conclude he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a letter fko- architect who describes the petitioner as his "colleague and 
student," stating: 
[The petitioner's] projects are highly recognized and appreciated by both domestic and foreign specialists 
in the field. [The petitioner] combined his creative inventions with classic Chinese architecture and 
construction projects. In the year 1997, 1998 and 1999, [the petitioner] presented his talents by creating 
one invention each year. All of the 3 inventions are already patented waiting to be promoted to the 
market. 
The petitioner submitted copies of three patent certificates issued to him by the National Property Rights 
Office of the People's Republic of China. The patents were apparently issued for inventions related to 
architectural construction and engineering. Although directly relevant to this criterion, the patent certificates 
Page 7 
were not submitted with certified English language translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103.2@)(3). We note that to establish eligibility under this category by virtue of patents, a petitioner must 
not only show that his work has been granted a patent, but that the patented invention constitutes a 
contribution of major significance in his field. We cannot ignore 
 statement that the petitioner's 
patents were "waiting to be promoted to the market." 
 A petitioner cannot file a petition under this 
classification based on the expectation of future eligibility. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
There is no evidence establishing that the petitioner's patents were contributions of major significance in his 
field. 
On certification, the petitioner submits notices dated June 2004 and October 2003 informing him that his 
"Automobile Combination Moving Road Bridges" patent received a governmental grant and was selected by 
Economy Daily for conferences, exhibitions, and inclusion in an information bank. The petitioner also 
submits a December 2003 letter from America Well Industrial Holding Group Ltd. stating that its marketing 
department was considering his Painting and Plastering Edge Control Strip patent as an investment project. 
The English language translations of these notices were not certified by the translator as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2@)(3). Further, these notices were issued subsequent to the petition's filing 
date. As discussed previously, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $9 
103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this 
evidence in this proceeding. Even if were to consider these notices, we cannot conclude that the petitioner's 
receipt of a governmental grant and the intent of the preceding organizations to promote his inventions 
demonstrate that his patents constitute scientific contributions of major significance in the field. 
Aside from his three patents, the petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship several essays on the 
architecture and construction industry of Japan published in the Chinese trade journal Builders Monthly. Material 
written and published by the petitioner relates to the "authorship of scholarly articles7' criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one 
another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and original contributions of major 
significance, CIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one 
criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least 
three criteria would be meaningless. We will fully address the published work authored by the petitioner 
under the next criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a June 18,2005 "Advisory Opinion" from Professor of Philosophy, 
American Purlinton University, Pomona, California, describing himself as a "recognized expert in the field" 
who is "well qualified to evaluate [the petitioner's] qualifications and contributions to Ecological 
Architectural Design and Structure." The record, however, includes no evidence 
is a recognized expert in the petitioner's field or an allied one.4 Without evidence of 
credentials, we cannot assign any weight to his letter. 
4 
 There is no evidence showing that American Purlinton University offers a degree program in architecture that is 
recognized by California's Bureau of Private Post Secondary and Vocational Education. 
Page 8 
The petitioner also submitted a letter of su ort from of Sias International Group, Inc., but 
there is no evidence showing that s an expert in the petitioner's field or an allied one. - 
states: 
Because of his success and contribution in the field, [the petitioner] has been invited to Las Nevada 
[sic], New York, and Taxes [sic] to help with ecological architectural design and construction. 
Clearly, [the petitioner's] work is national in scope. Ecology is of great national concern; [the 
petitioner's] work will benefit the US nationally. 
The record, however, includes no evidence showing that the petitioner's work in the architectural, ecological, 
or construction fields has already provided a significant national benefit. According to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5@)(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 preceding individuals' letters discuss their admiration of the petitioner and his work, there is no 
evidence demonstrating that his work has had major significance in the field. For example, the record does 
not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other architectural engineers nationally or 
internationally, nor does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
With regard to the petitioner's artistic contributions, a letter from 
 President of the Chinese 
Calligraphy and Painting Society of the United States of America, states: 
 "In response to the need of 
Japanese learners, [the petitioner] created Hard Pen Hollow Calligraphy and was widely appreciated. . . . 
Since then, he has been working hard on the Hollow Calligraphy. However, due to the conservative 
environment in China, his Hollow Calligraphy has not been widely acknowledged." states that the 
petitioner was widely appreciated, but there is no evidence showing that his calligraphy work was tantamount 
to original artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner's professional contacts are not 
sufficient to meet this criterion. CIS 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, CIS 
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 one's professional contacts is not presumptive evidence 
of eligibility; CIS 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 architectural engineer or artist who 
has sustained national or international acclaim. 
 Without extensive documentation showing that the 
petitioner's work has been unusually influential, has attracted significant attention for its impact at the 
national or international level, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major 
significance in the field, we cannot conclude that he meets 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 petitioner submitted copies of several articles written by him and published between July 1989 and June 1990 
in Builders Monthly. The petitioner also submitted an April 15, 1994 letter stating that he had been elected as a 
core writer for Construction Techniques Magazine, but there is no evidence of his authorship of scholarly articles 
for this publication. None of the English language translations accompanying the preceding documents were 
certified as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2@)(3). Further, there is no evidence (such as 
circulation statistics) showing that the preceding publications qualify as major trade publications. In this case, 
the petitioner has not submitted evidence establishing that his articles were frequently cited, and that they 
appeared in a major publication or were otherwise published and circulated in a manner consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The director's October 22, 2007 notice of certification stated: "The record indicates that the petitioner is a 
calligrapher and two of the recommendation letters credit him with creation of 'Hollow Calligraphy,' although the 
record contains no documentation of the petitioner's calligraphy." Nor is there evidence showing that the 
petitioner's calligraphy was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases in a manner consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
In February 2008, the petitioner submitted his "newest work of art" entitled "101 postures." This artwork was 
a paper-cut silhouette rather than calligraphy. Further, there is no evidence showing that this creation had 
been displayed at arhstic exhibitions or showcases as of the petition's filing date. 8 C.F.R. $4 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. While the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.3(a)(2)(vii) gives the AAO the 
discretion to allow the affected party additional time to submit an appellate brief under certain circumstances, 
there is no regulatory provision at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.4 that permits additional time in which to submit 
supplemental evidence on certification. The 30-day period permitted under 8 C.F.R. 8 103.4(a)(2) expired on 
November 21, 2007. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's February 2008 submission in 
this preceding. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that he performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
The April 18, 2003 letter from states that the petitioner "was appointed as China Overseas Consulates 
Project Techniques Responsible Officer and Project Engineer," but the record contains no corroborative evidence 
of this appointment, the petitioner's role for the appointing office, or the reputation of that office. The petitioner 
also submitted a letter from the Jiangnan Culture Research Institute describing the petitioner as a professor of the 
Page 10 
Institute, but the English language translation accompanying the letter was not certified as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3) and there is no independent evidence that the Institute has a distinguished 
reputation. The record also includes a certificate attesting to the petitioner's position and salary as "a chief 
engneer of Nanjing Jianjiu Science and Technology Co., Ltd.," but the record contains no evidence that he 
performs a leading or critical role for the company or that the company has a distinguished reputation. With 
regard to the positions held by the petitioner, there is no evidence demonstrating how his role differentiated him 
from others holding similar appointments, let alone more senior management and faculty in these organizations. 
The evidence is not adequate to demonstrate that the petitioner was responsible for his employers' success 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. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The director's October 22,2007 notice of certification stated: 
The record contains a "Certificate of Salaries" certifying that [the petitioner] is a chief engneer of 
Nanjing Jianjiu Science and Technology Co. Ltd., and that his salary in 2003 is RMB 160,000.00. The 
petitioner must provide not only proof of his own compensation, but other evidence to allow a 
meaningful comparison between his compensation and that paid to others in his field. . . . In the absence 
of such evidence it cannot be established that the petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
We concur with the director's finding. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to 
submit evidence showing that he has commanded a high salary "in relation to others in the field." The 
petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that his compensation was significantly high in relation to 
others in his field. There is no indication that the petitioner has earned a level of compensation that places him 
among the highest paid architectural engineers in China, the United States, or any other country. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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. 8 204.5@)(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 burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
Page 1 1 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision of October 22,2007 is affirmed. The petition is denied.