dismissed EB-1A Case: Architecture

identiving data de!zted to 
mevent clear1 y unwarranted 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of penoilal privacy 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
pm~ COPY 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: MAR 1 g 2009 
LIN06 181 51132 
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. 8 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 fiu-ther inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
V 
%hn 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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate receipt of a 
major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in ths 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 achevements 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. 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). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on June 16, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an architect. 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. 5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a 
specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not 
be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
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 the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted copies of pages from the Demonstrating Digital Architecture 
 Far 
Eastern International Digital Architectural Design Award yearbook reflecting that he was among 
dozens of entrants whose projects were included in the yearbook. The petitioner's project appeared 
on page 159 of this 226 page publication. On page 6 of the yearbook, Far 
Eastern Group Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, states: "We are delighted to report that 
altogether we have received 87 pieces of work from 29 nations." 
The petitioner also submitted copies of pages from Web Design in Italy reflecting that a website he 
designed for was among dozens of websites profiled in the book. The petitioner's 
work appeared on page 38 of this 173 page publication. Under the heading "The web project," a 
contributor to this publication, ~rtlab Director, states: "We are . . . at a turn that 
allows us, once again, to try to contemplate this topic in the light of day: and this is exactly what 
this publication has done - a publication that has compiled nice examples of good Italian web 
design, examples that are different from one another . . . ." The director's decision noted that this 
book relates to "web design rather than architecture." The plain language of this regulatory criterion 
requires "prizes or awards for excellence in thefield of endeavor." In this case, the petitioner seeks 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of architecture and he has not 
established that website design represents his field of endeavor. 
With regard to inclusion of the petitioner's design work in Demonstrating Digital Architecture 5" 
Far Eastern International Digital Architectural Design Award and Web Design in Italy, the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of his receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized "prizes or awards" in the field. Aside from having his work appear in print, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner received a prize or award for his designs. Further, the petitioner 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
has not established that selection of his work for these books was indicative of national or 
international recognition for excellence in architecture or was otherwise consistent with being in 
"that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has received nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which classijkation is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessaiy 
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 qualifl as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level fiom a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualifl as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.2 
The petitioner submitted August 17,2005 and January 15,2006 articles in the New York Times profiling 
New York clubs Home and Guest House, but neither article mentions his name. The petitioner also 
submitted material that does not mention him in publications such as Citysearch, AM New York, IN New 
York, Us Weekly, Celebrity Living Weekly, New York News Day, and Bar Life. The plain language of 
this regulatory criterion requires that the published material be "about the alien." Articles that do not 
mention the petitioner do not meet this requirement. In response to the director's request for evidence, 
the petitioner submitted additional articles from 2007 in New York Magazine, Rolling Stone, Papermag, 
and the New York Post discussing the Highline Ballroom and its musical acts rather than the petitioner. 
Aside from not being about the petitioner, the articles fiom 2007 were published subsequent to the 
petition's filing date. 
 A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
 8 C.F.R. 
00 103.2(b)(l), (12); see Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the articles from 2007 in this proceeding. 
The petitioner submitted an excerpt fiom City Magazine that is not primarily about him. Further, the 
date and author of the material were not provided and it has not been established that this local 
publication qualifies as a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a February 2,2006 article in Caretas, but the article only mentions his name in 
passing and it was unaccompanied by a certified English language translation. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
-- 
2 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 5 
§ 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. Further, the author of the material was not identified and it has not been established that this 
publication qualifies as a form of major media. 
As discussed, the petitioner submitted copies of pages from the Demonstrating Digital Architecture 
5'" Far Eastern International Digital Architectural Design Award yearbook reflecting that his design 
appeared on page 159 of this 226 page publication. The petitioner also submitted copies of pages 
from Web Design in Italy reflecting that his design appeared on page 38 of this 173 page publication. 
There is no evidence showing that the petitioner was singled out from the dozens of other individuals 
whose designs were included in these books. The petitioner has not established these publications, 
or any significant portion of them, are about him. Further, there is no evidence (such as national or 
international book sales data) showing that either publication qualifies as a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted press releases prepared by promoting the openings of two 
nightclubs designed by him, but these announcements were not about him. Nevertheless, a press 
release is a written communication directed at the news media for the purpose of announcing 
information claimed as having news value rather than "published material . . . in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media." We cannot conclude that a press release, which is not the 
result of independent media reportage and which is sent to journalists in order to encourage them to 
develop articles on a subject, meets the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a September 8, 2005 letter confirming an upcoming interview of him by a 
representative of New York's 4104.3 radio station, but the record does not include a transcript or a 
recording of the broadcast. Further, there is no evidence showing that this radio station qualifies as a 
form of major media, that the petitioner's interview aired nationally or internationally, or that it was 
otherwise broadcast in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted material posted on Arquitectum.com, rhythmism.com, bluarch.com, 
archinect.com, the City College of the City University of New York's internet site, Parsons New School 
for Design's internet site, but there is no evidence showing that any of these internet sites qualifl as 
major media or that the material mentioning the petitioner meets the other requirements of thls 
regulatory criterion (such as being about the petitioner or including the date and author of the material). 
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 specijication for which classijication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence 
Page 6 
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. 8 204.5(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. § 204.5@1)(2). 
For example, evaluating the work of 
established professionals as a member on a national panel of experts is of far greater probative value 
than evaluating one's students. 
The petitioner submitted an undated letter from, City College of New York, 
stating: "[The petitioner] teaches Design Studio courses, the very academic core of our program, 
and has been participating on panels as judge on final design reviews. His students' work shows 
exciting speculative reach and definitely proves his outstanding quality as a professional and as an 
educator." The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's 
participation . . . as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification." We 
cannot conclude that evaluating the final design reviews of architectural students, who have not yet 
begun working in the field, meets this requirement. With regard to the petitioner's activities as an 
educator, we do not find that teaching core courses to architectural students is tantamount to judging 
the work of others in the field. While an instructor does evaluate the work of his or her pupils, this 
evaluation is inherent in the process of teaching. The petitioner's employment by the City College 
of New York demonstrates his competency as a teacher, but he has not established that such 
employment meets the plain language of this regulatory criterion or that it is indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
The petitioner submitted an undated letter from fi 
LLC, New York, stating: 
I met [the petitioner] a couple of years ago when we both participated on a panel as judges of 
the competition Europan, evaluating design proposals of professionals from around the 
world. The project had a very articulate program requiring extensive analysis and 
production. 
The jury was comprised of 4 judges with preeminent academic and professional relevance, 
and [the petitioner's] work was already familiar to me thanks to his research on architectural 
space as a pre-existing epitome. 
The petitioner also submitted information printed from the Europan internet site stating: 
Jury and Adjudication - In each country a jury is put together. The members of the jury are 
appointed by the national organization and approved by the international organization of 
Europan. Each jury comprises nine members and two substitute jury members who have no 
connection with the sites . . . . 
There is no evidence originating from the Europan organization confirming the petitioner's 
participation as a judge or his dates of service. Further, according to the information from Europan's 
internet site, "[elach jury comprises nine members and two substitute jury members." However, 
letter states that the petitioner's "jury was comprised of 4 judges." 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 No, 19 I&N Dec. 
582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In resnonse to the director's reauest for evidence. the netitioner submitted a May 16. 2006 letter 
In 2002, [the petitioner] and I were jurors on a panel of five evaluating entries for the 
. In that occasion, architects and 
designers submitted ideas on innovative ways to employ bamboo in buildings of different 
typologies. 
[The petitioner] showed outstanding expertise and played as significant a role as the rest of 
the panel in judging the proposals. 
The petitioner submitted information printed from the internet regarding the '- 
," but there is no information regarding the 2002 competition. 
Further, the petitioner has not submitted evidence originating fiom the competition organizers 
confirming his participation as a judge or his dates of service. 
Rather than submitting evidence fi-om the competition organizers confirming his pAicipation as a 
involvement. 
 Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). The record does not include primary evidence from the competition organizers 
demonstrating the petitioner's participation as a judge. A petition must be filed with any initial 
evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
In this instance, the petitioner has not overcome the absence of primary and secondary evidence of 
his participation as a judge for preceding competitions. Further, the record lacks evidence 
establishing the level of acclaim associated with judging these competitions. Nor is there evidence 
showing the specific work judged by the petitioner, his dates of participation, the names of those he 
evaluated, their level of expertise, or documentation of his assessments. Without evidence showing, 
for example, that the petitioner has participated as a judge of experienced architects in a manner 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field, we cannot 
conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzjicance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support. We cite representative examples here. 
[The petitioner] has been carrying out an advanced research in architectural design 
investigating the concept of architectural space as a pre-existing narrative streaming on the 
timeline, where the quadrangular space (archetype) is continuous, and bends along opportune 
programmatic needs (key-fiames) of the design process (design moment). The cultural 
approach of this study is dynamic and flexible and delivers new exciting formal possibilities 
explored through advanced three-dimensional software and technologies. 
Also most notable is his transposition of string theory to architecture, a breakthrough 
contribution of major significance, which has gained him international exposure in 
publications and at the exhibition on advanced digital architecture at the Graduate Institute of 
Architecture, National Chiao Tung University [Taiwan]. 
I have known about [the petitioner] though articles and exhibitions of his work. He was part 
of a group exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City (MoMA), and more 
recently at the Graduate Institute of Architecture, National Chiao Tung University [Taiwan]. 
At the Far Eastern Conference he presented his research project on string theory applied to 
architecture. The project examines scale as physical and non-physical relationship, where the 
non-physical accommodate the ever-changing need of human feelings and moods, thus 
offering architectural space which changes in real time along the physical scale. In this 
scenario [the petitioner] engages architecture in a unique frame work of evolving processes 
and design outcomes. This is a breakthrough contribution of major significance. 
He has recently presented a book proposal to the Research Institute for Experimental 
Architecture in Switzerland and to me. The book entitled Edge negotiates a concept of space 
as an ever-changing narrative of surfaces . . . . 
While the petitioner's work is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any architectural research, in 
order to be accepted for graduation, publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful 
information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every architectural scholar who creates 
original work that has been published or displayed has inherently made a contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
Page 9 
states: "[The petitioner's] work is of major significance to the architectural practice, as it offers new 
archetypical formats in understanding human interaction in the architectural space." 
College of the City University of New York, states: 
[The petitioner] has recently presented a theoretical essay entitled Edge to the prestigious 
Research Institute of Experimental Architecture in Switzerland. The outcome of the research 
is outstanding in its forward-thinking approach to the design process, and most prominent in 
its philosophical accomplishments. 
There is no evidence demonstrating that Edge was published as of the petition's filing date. As 
discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Nevertheless, the petitioner's Edge essay is far more 
relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. Cj 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, USCIS 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 Mher address the petitioner's 
authorship of scholarly material and the attention that it has garnered under the next criterion. 
Landscape Architecture, City college of the City University of New York, states: "[The 
major contribution to field relates to the new theoretical shifts emerging from the introduction of 
digital production and representation. His technique is widely accepted and used by many 
colleagues, and has put him at the top of our field and given him continuing preeminence." 
letter does not specifically identify the original architectural technique developed 
by the petitioner, nor does it provide specific examples of its widespread acceptance and use. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has earned the admiration of 
those offering letters of support, the documentation submitted by him does not establish 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 scholars nationally or internationally, nor does it 
show that the field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of support submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791,795 
(Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters fiom experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of 
those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. Thus, the content 
of the experts' 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 scholar who has 
sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence showing that the petitioner's work has 
been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level 
of contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jeld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he coauthored an article entitled ''B~ 
posted on 
Adriatico, an "online journal for cultural and scientific cooperation." 
 The petitioner has not 
established that this article represents a scholarly article in the field of architecture or that this online 
journal qualifies as a major publication. The petitioner also submitted evidence of lectures he 
prepared for New York colleges and his authorship of a theoretical essay entitled but there is 
no evidence showing that this material was published in professional or major trade publications or 
some other form of major media. The director concluded that the petitioner's evidence did not 
establish that the material authored by him has significantly impacted his field or has otherwise 
garnered him national or international acclaim. The petitioner does not challenge this conclusion on 
appeal. Upon review, we find the director properly considered the evidence submitted, thoroughly 
addressed the petitioner's arguments and appropriately addressed the evidence and arguments in his 
decision. Accordingly, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien S work in the jeld at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
In addressing this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The petitioner is claiming work that was displayed at the [Museum of Modern Art]. 
However, it appears that the work consisted of photographs taken by the petitioner rather 
than his architectural designs. As such, this display does not satisfy this criterion. The 
petitioner also had works displayed at the Far Eastern Memorial Foundation, The Van Allen 
Institute, and Centro Arquitectum. The Service requested additional documentary evidence 
regarding the nature and standing of these organizations. The Service also requested evidence 
which demonstrates the means by which his works were chosen for display; the nature and 
purpose of the exhibit; and the dates that his works were on display with each organization. 
However, the petitioner failed to provide the evidence requested. In the absence of additional 
evidence including the nature and purpose of the exhibit and the means by which his works 
were chosen for display, the record fails to establish that the [petitioner's] works were 
displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
We agree with the director that the petitioner has not established that the photography exhibition in 
which he participated at the Museum of Modern Art was based on his work in the field of 
architecture. With regard to the institutions where the petitioner's works were shown, it must be 
stressed that an artist or architect does not satisfy this criterion simply by arranging for his work to 
be displayed. In this case, there is no indication that the petitioner's works have consistently been 
featured along side those of artists or architects who enjoy national or international reputations, that 
he has regularly participated in exhibitions at significant venues devoted primarily to the display of 
his work alone, or that his exhibited work was singled out for critical acclaim by others in his field. 
Upon review, we find the director properly addressed the petitioner's evidence in the decision. 
Accordingly, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion is the position the petitioner was selected to fill. In other words, the position 
must be of such significance that the alien's selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of 
or consistent with national or international acclaim. The director concluded that the record did not 
establish that the petitioner's teaching positions with the City College of the City University of New 
York and the Parsons School of Design were leading or critical. We concur with the director's findings. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that he worked for Bluarch Architecture and Interiors, 
but there is no evidence showing that this company has a distinguished reputation. With regard to the 
petitioner's teaching positions and his role for Bluarch, there is no evidence demonstrating how the 
petitioner's role differentiated him from others holding similar positions (such as their other instructors 
or architects), let alone their tenured faculty or senior management. In this case, the evidence does not 
establish 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that he recently redesigned the website for the School of Architecture, 
Urban Design and Landscape Architecture, City College of the City University of New York, and that 
this work distinguished him fiom other employees in the institution. There is no evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner had completed his work on the school's website as of the petition's 
filing date. As discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
06 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Nevertheless, the petitioner has not 
submitted evidence fiom City College of the City University of New York officials discussing the 
importance of this website project or the nature of his role for the project. 
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 significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in thepeld. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted his U.S. income tax return 
for 2006 reflecting employment-related compensation of $61,426. The petitioner also submitted 
information from the U.S. Department of Labor's internet site showing the median earnings of 
architects in the New York and New Jersey metropolitan region. For example, the Level 4 Wage (fully 
competent) for architects in this area was $89,357 per year. According to the documentation submitted 
by the petitioner, his earnings of $61,426 fall substantially below the median wage for fully competent 
architects in the New York and New Jersey metropolitan region. As such, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner has commanded a high salary in relation to others in his field. 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence also included information fiom "O- 
Net OnLine" indicating that the national median wage for architects in 2005 was $62,850. We note 
that the petitioner's employment-related compensation of $61,426 in 2006 falls below the median 
national wage for 2005. Thus, the petitioner has again failed to establish that he has commanded a 
high salary in relation to others in his field. Moreover, we find that the petitioner's reliance on median 
salary statistics is not an appropriate basis for comparison. The petitioner must submit evidence 
showing his salary places him among that small percentage at the very top of the field rather than in 
the top half of his field. See 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a monthly bank statement from HSBC Direct for the period of 
September 7, 2007 to October 5, 2007 as further evidence for this regulatory criterion. This bank 
statement post-dates the filing of the petition. As discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at 
the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 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. Nevertheless, this bank 
statement does not establish that the petitioner has received compensation that is significantly high in 
relation to others in his field. 
As there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has earned a level of compensation that places him 
among the highest paid architects in the United States, the petitioner has not established that he meets 
this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt 
of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion 
separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the 
evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
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 
Page 13 
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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.