dismissed EB-1A Case: Architecture

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
'$5 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: DE 0 2 2009 
LIN 06 181 51 132 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Ths 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. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
.I: j. tl,/j)ii/[ \ 1 [, 
i '' Peny Rhew 
t Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The 
AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reopen and 
reconsider. The motion will be granted, the previous decision of the AAO will be affirmed, and the 
petition will remain denied. 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director and the AAO 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 and the AAO found that the petitioner had 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. $ 204.5(h)(3). 
On motion, the petitioner argues that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, that 
he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), and that he has submitted 
comparable evidence his extraordinary ability pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(4). 
For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner's motion does not overcome the AAO's findings. 
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. 
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. 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. 5 204.5(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 June 16, 2006, seeks to class@ 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). On motion, the petitioner submits a March 11,2009 news 
release issued by the International Interior Design Association (IIDA) stating that his architectural 
firm, Bluarch Architecture + Interiors, was among six winners of the IIDA's 36th Annual Interior 
Design Competition in 2009 for its project "Greenhouse Nightclub." The news release further states 
that the "judges selection for Best of Competition will be officially revealed . . . at COOL, IIDA's 
NeoCon Gala to be held on Sunday June 14, in the Grand Ballroom at the Westin Chicago River 
North." The petitioner's firm was selected as a winner of the IIDA7s 36" Annual Interior Design 
Competition subsequent to the petition's June 16, 2006 filing date. A petitioner, however, 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 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this honor in this 
proceeding. 
Nevertheless, aside from the IIDA's self-serving news release, there is no evidence of the 
significance of the IIDA honor or its competition. Further, the news release identifies "Bluarch 
Architecture + Interiors" rather than the petitioner as one of the six winners and there is no evidence 
showing that his firm ultimately received IIDA's "Best of Competition" award on June 14, 2009. 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligbility based on a one- 
time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101 -723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted 
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at "6739. Given that the House Report specifically 
cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement, examples of one-time awards 
which enjoy major, international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, 
and (most relevant for athletics) an Olympic Medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative 
history, stating that a one-time achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is 
reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name 
to the public at large and includes a large cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could 
conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from 
the example provided by Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationally 
recognized in the alien's field as one of the top awards in that field. In this instance, even if the 
petitioner's firm's selection was primarily attributable to his design work, there is no supporting 
evidence showing that being designated among several winners of the IIDA's 36th Annual Interior 
Design Competition equates to receipt of a major, internationally recognized award. Regardless, the 
IIDA honor cannot be considered in this proceeding because it post-dates the filing of the petition. 
8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Barring the alien's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3) 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 under 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
The petitioner submitted copies of pages from the Demonstrating Digital Architecture 5" 
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 
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, 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 fi-om one another . . . . 
'9 
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 
the .field 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'j Far Eastern International Digital Architectural Design Award and Web 
Design in Italy, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of his receipt 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 5 
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 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. 
The petitioner's motion does not specifically challenge any of the AAO's appellate findings for this 
regulatory criterion. Upon review, we find the AAO properly considered the evidence submitted, 
thoroughly addressed the petitioner's arguments, and appropriately addressed the evidence and 
arguments in its decision. 
As discussed previously, the petitioner's motion includes a March 1 1, 2009 news release issued by the 
IIDA stating that his architectural firm was among six winners of the IIDA's 36th Annual Interior 
Design Competition in 2009. The petitioner's firm was selected as a winner of the IIDA competition 
subsequent to the petition's June 16, 2006 filing date. As previously discussed, 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. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this honor in this proceeding. Nevertheless, 
aside from the IIDA's self-serving news release, there is no evidence of the significance of the IIDA 
honor or its competition. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F .R. §204.5(h)(3)(i) 
specifically requires that 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 instance, there is no 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the IIDA honor is recognized beyond the presenting 
organization and therefore commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence in the field. Further, the news release identifies "Bluarch Architecture + 
Interiors" rather than the petitioner as one of the six winners. The plain language of this regulatory 
criterion, however, specifically requires "documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards." [Emphasis added.] Finally, there is no evidence 
showing that his firm ultimately received IIDA's "Best of Competition" award on June 14,2009. 
In light of the above, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not meet 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 classiJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
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 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 from 2007 were published subsequent to the petition's filing date. A 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 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 from 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. 8 103.2(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 51h 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 
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. 
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 Q104.3 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, rhythrnism.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 
qualify as major media or that the material mentioning the petitioner meets the other 
requirements of this regulatory criterion (such as being about the petitioner or including the date 
and author of the material). 
The petitioner's motion does not specifically challenge any of the AAO's appellate findings for this 
regulatory criterion. Upon review, we find the AAO properly considered the evidence submitted, 
thoroughly addressed the petitioner's arguments, and appropriately addressed the evidence and 
arguments in its decision. 
On motion, the petitioner submits a New York Times Green Inc. online blog posting dated November 
25, 2008 and "Corrected 12/23/08." The entry, entitled "'Green' Nightclub Trend Comes to New 
York," does not mention the petitioner and was posted subsequent to the petition's filing date. The 
petitioner's motion includes additional material and articles about the petitioner's Greenhouse 
nightclub project posted online or published in late 2007,~ late 2008, and early 2009. As discussed 
previously, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
The only material from 2007 was an online posting on the "Green Girls Global Blog" dated October 3, 2007 
announcing the opening of the Greenhouse nightclub in New York. The four-sentence posting does not name the 
petitioner. 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider material posted or 
published in 2007,2008, or 2009 in this proceeding. 
In light of the above, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not meet 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 specification for which classification is 
sought. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
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 
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 fi-om 
Europan's internet site, "[elach jury comprises nine members and two substitute jury 
members."   ow ever, 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 Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a May 16, 2006 
letter from New York, 
stating: 
In 2002, [the petitioner] and I were jurors on a panel of five evaluating entries for the 
International Bamboo Building Design Competition. 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 "2006 
International Bamboo Building Design Competition," but there is no information regarding 
the 2002 competition. Further, the petitioner has not submitted evidence originating from the 
competition organizers confirming his participation as a judge or his dates of service. 
Rather than submitting evidence from the competition organizers confirming his participation 
as a judge in the Europan competition and the 2002 International Bamboo Building Design 
Competition, the petitioner instead submitted brief letters from and- 
attesting to his 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. 5 103.2(b)(l). 
The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of 
ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. $ 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. 
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." The evidence submitted 
to meet 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with sustained 
national or international a~claim.~ 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). 
On motion, the petitioner states: 
I produced two testimonial statements from other colleagues who had served with me as 
judges. I could not provide primary, contemporaneous documentation of the actual invitation, 
because modem life and technology have moved at such a fast pace, that in some instances, 
written communication that can be preserved and photocopied, has become passe. Very often 
invitations and other evidence that can be saved and submitted, are relayed via electronic 
messages and are therefore of ephemeral nature. At the time that they are transmitted, 
without the forethought that they would eventually be useful in proving tangible written 
evidence in an application for extraordinary ability classification, they are automatically 
deleted or even email addresses use up all allowable bytes, and are closed by the server, or 
the owner of the email address is denied access. Also, websites that initially have the USCIS- 
required data are updated, and prior, all-important information to the USCIS, are supplanted 
by updates. Therefore, secondary or comparable evidence has to be proferred [sic]. . . . I 
submit that it is reasonable, and just that comparable evidence such as letters of people who 
know about the events, be accepted, when, despite numerous, due-diligence searches, prior, 
available information, is no longer available. 
"comparable evidence." The specific deficiencies regarding these letters were addressed in the 
AAO's appellate decision and will be further discussed below. Regardless, the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria 
4 
We note that although not binding precedent, this interpretation has been upheld in Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 
(S.D. Tex. March 24, 2006) and All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL el al., 2005 WL 4045866 *11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 
2005). 
"do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." 
 The regulatory language at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(4) precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no 
indication 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(h)(3). We cannot ignore that the 
petitioner has specifically argued that he meets the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
(iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), and (ix). Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of the 
regulatory criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
The petitioner refers to an unpublished California Service Center decision in which USCIS allegedly 
approved an extraordinary ability petition based on "a letter certifying that a gymnast 
contemporaneously knew that another gymnast had represented her country in the Olympic Games, 
when the record no longer existed in Romania." The petitioner has furnished no evidence to 
establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished California 
Service Center decision. While 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are 
binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished service center 
decisions are not similarly binding. Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is 
comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. The AAO is not bound to 
follow the contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 
WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Europan competition and the International Bamboo Building Design Competition are not sufficient 
to meet this criterion. The classification sought by the petitioner requires "extensive documentation" 
of "sustained national or international acclaim" for recognized achievements in the field. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). As discussed, 
simply 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. at 158, 165. A 
petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). 
The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates 
that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary 
evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely 
on affidavits. Where a record does not exist, the petitioner must submit an original written statement 
on letterhead from the relevant authority indicating the reason the record does not exist and whether 
similar records for the time and place are available. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(2)(ii). 
With regard to the petitioner's request that the letters from and 
 be accepted as 
secondary evidence, we find that their letters do not equate to secondary evidence (which is defined by 
8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(2)(i) as institutional "records"). Further, contrary to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(2)(ii), the petitioner did not submit a statement from the competition organizers 
indicating that their records from the Europan competition and the International Bamboo Building 
Design Competition do not exist. Even if the petitioner were to demonstrate such secondary 
evidence to be unavailable from the preceding competitions' organizers, the letters from - 
Moreover, the information in letter was found to 
contradict information originating from the Europan internet site. As discussed in the AAO's 
appellate decision, 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 ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. at 582, 591-92. 
Section 29 1 of the Act provides: 
Whenever any person makes application for a visa or any other document required for entry, or 
makes application for admission, or otherwise attempts to enter the United States, the burden of 
proof shall be upon such person to establish that he is eligible. to receive such visa or such 
document, or is not inadmissible under any provision of this Act, and, if an alien, that he is 
entitled to the nonimmigrant; immigrant, special immigrant, immediate relative, or refugee 
status claimed, as the case may be. 
The law goes on to assert that the evidence must establish eligibility "to the satisfaction" of the 
adjudicating officer. This burden is confirmed in Matter of Soo Hoo, 1 1 I&N Dec. 15 1 (BIA 1965) and 
Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). In this instance, the petitioner's motion does not 
include evidence of the petitioner's participation as a judge that meets the requirements of this criterion 
and of 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(2)(i) and (ii), that overcomes the information in letter 
contradicting the information originating from the Europan internet site, and that is commensurate 
with the statutory and regulatory requirement of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzjicance in the field. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
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-frames) 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. 
practice, as it offers new archetypical formats in understanding human interaction in the 
architectural space." 
Urban Design and Landscape 
Architecture, City 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. 
$5 103.2(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. 
$ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and 
distinct fi-om 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 further address the petitioner's authorship of scholarly material and 
the attention that it has garnered under the next criterion. 
petitioner's] 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. 5 204.5(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 (Comrnr. 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 fi-om 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. 
The petitioner's motion does not specifically challenge any of the AAO's appellate findings for this 
regulatory criterion. Upon review, we find the AAO properly considered the evidence submitted, 
thoroughly addressed the petitioner's arguments, and appropriately addressed the evidence and 
arguments in its decision. 
On motion, the petitioner states that the 2007, 2008, and 2009 articles and online material about his 
Greenhouse nightclub project demonstrate his design's originality and major significance. Aside 
fi-om the preceding documentation, the petitioner submits requests from various publishers in 2009 
to include his Greenhouse nightclub project in their publications. The petitioner also submits e-mail 
requests from three students in 2009 for information about his project. The petitioner argues that the 
preceding documentation is further evidence that his work is tantamount to original contributions of 
major significance. The preceding evidence from 2007, 2008, and 2009 post-dates the filing of the 
petition. 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. Without evidence in existence at the time of filing 
showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his 
field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we reaffirm 
our appellate finding that the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he coauthored an article entitled "The Virtual 
Shopping Mall as a Tool for the Recovery of the Historical City Center of Senigallia" 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 
Edge, 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. 
The petitioner's motion does not specifically challenge any of the AAO's appellate findings for this 
regulatory criterion. Upon review, we find the AAO properly considered the evidence submitted, 
thoroughly addressed the petitioner's arguments, and appropriately addressed the evidence and 
arguments in its decision. Accordingly, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
Page 16 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
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. 
The petitioner's motion does not specifically challenge any of the AAO's appellate findings for this 
regulatory criterion. Upon review, we find the AAO properly considered the evidence submitted, 
thoroughly addressed the petitioner's arguments, and appropriately addressed the evidence and 
arguments in its decision. Accordingly, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
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 thls 
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 from 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. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49. Nevertheless, the petitioner has not submitted evidence from 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. 
The petitioner's motion does not specifically challenge any of the AAO's appellate findings for this 
regulatory criterion. Upon review, we find the AAO properly considered the evidence submitted, 
thoroughly addressed the petitioner's arguments, and appropriately addressed the evidence and 
arguments in its decision. 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that the 2007, 2008, and 2009 articles and online material about his 
Greenhouse nightclub project and Bluarch Architecture + Interior's selection as one of six winners 
of the IIDA's 36th Annual Interior Design Competition in 2009 demonstrate his firm's distinguished 
reputation and that he performed in a leading or critical role for his firm. As previously discussed, 
the preceding evidence from 2007,2008, and 2009 post-dates the filing of the petition. A petitioner, 
however, 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. 
In light of the above, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the3eld. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
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 $6 1,426. The petitioner 
also submitted information from the U.S. Department of Labor's internet site showing the 
median earnings of archtects 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 
from "0-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 hgh 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. 5 204.5(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. $8 103.2(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. 
The petitioner's motion does not specifically challenge any of the AAO's appellate findings for this 
regulatory criterion. Upon review, we find the AAO properly considered the evidence submitted, 
thoroughly addressed the petitioner's arguments, and appropriately addressed the evidence and 
arguments in its decision. Accordingly, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination and our appellate findings that the petitioner 
has failed to demonstrate his 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). Therefore, 
the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: 
 The AAO's March 19, 2009 decision dismissing the appeal is affirmed. The petition 
will remain denied.