dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

.' 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: APR 2 3 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § l1S3(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
r;lt~ t;? ... -v-- ~r-.- -foV 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics as a ski instructor 
and coach, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A). The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner'submits a brief with no new evidence. For the reasons discussed below, the 
AAO upholds the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established his eligibility 
for the classification sought. 
I. LAW 
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. 
-Page 3 
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 H.R. 723 WIst Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Ped. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id.; 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 P.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 1 With respect to the criteria at 8 c.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 
8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Previous 0-1 Visa 
While U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased, 
standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves 
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 
nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply 
approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M 
Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior 
approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on a 
reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petItIOns where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between 
a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
B. Translations Submitted With the Petition 
Each of the foreign language documents that the petitioner submitted at the time he filed the petition 
appear to be accompanied by a single blanket certification from the translator rather than each document 
being accompanied by its own certification verifying the completeness and accuracy of the translation. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3) requires that: "Any document containing foreign language 
submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which 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." (Emphasis added.) The regulation does not allow a 
single certification from the translator for numerous foreign language documents that the translator does 
not identify in the certification. The AAO is therefore, unable to determine whether the evidence 
supports the petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the foreign language documents accompanying the initial 
petition are not probative and will not be accorded any evidentiary weight in this proceeding. This 
determination does not affect the new evidence submitted in response to the request for evidence (RFE) 
that bears a single certification for each piece of evidence. 
-Page 5 
C. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that the alien be the 
recipient of the prizes or the awards (in the plural). The clear regulatory language requires that the 
prizes or the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulation 
also requires evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence in the field of endeavor rather than 
simply for participating in or contributing to the event. The petitioner must satisfy all of these elements 
to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
and articles from 
nn'-,.TA,rAr,,, of the article fails to reflect the publication name), in 
several photographs of trophies and awards; evidence 
relating to the 2002 competition; and the history page from Synchroski.com. 
Counsel also submits information from unpublished AAO decisions that support the recognition of 
awards that are received as part of a team. Each of the above claimed awards date from eight years or 
more prior to the petition filing date. The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
Several of the expert letters assert claims of the national or international recognition of the petitioner's 
prizes or awards. uscrs may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, uscrs is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; uscrs may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 
2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USeIS may 
even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Sojfici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisty the petitioner's burden of proof. 
Fedin Bros. Co., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Aryr Associates, Inc. v. 
Meissner, 95 Cry. 10729 MBM, 1997 WL 188942, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Similarly, uscrs 
need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United 
States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
Page 6 
With the exception of the evidence relating to the 2002 
primary evidence of photographs of trophies and awards, 
evidentiary defects: 
• The evidence is distorted masking the recipient's name; 
the petitioner's 
all exhibit at least one of the below 
• The evidence does not list the petitioner's name on the trophy or the award; or 
• The evidence is in a foreign language but is not accompanied by the required translation 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). 
Additionally, the name of the presenting entity or the from the submitted 
evidence. The evidence relating to the 2002 does demonstrate that the 
petitioner is the recipient of a qualifying award under this criterion. The evidence includes: (1) this 
competition's medal reflecti~ce finish, (2) media reports of the petitioner's team finishing in 
first place, (3) a letter from ....- verifying that the petitioner was a member on the 2002 team, 
and (4) a letter from_ who served as a judge at the 2002 competition. 
While the petitioner did submit two foreign language certificates as primary evidence, he did not submit 
the required complete certified translations of those certificates. Regarding the remaining claimed 
awards, the petitioner has provided no legible primary evidence demonstrating the petitioner received 
any of the awards. In this case, while the petitioner submitted secondary evidence in the form of letters 
confirming he received various awards, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
demonstrating that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained, which is required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(2); the failure to do so creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
Regardless, the letters that the petitioner provides are not affidavits as each is not sworn to or affirmed 
by the declarant before an officer authorized to administer oaths or affirmations who has, having 
confirmed the declarant's identity, administered the requisite oath or affirmation. See Black's Law 
Dictionary 58 (9th Ed., West 2009). Nor, in lieu of having been signed before an officer authorized to 
administer oaths or affirmations, do they contain the requisite statement, permitted by Federal law, that 
the signers, in signing the statements, certify the truth of the statements, under penalty of perjury. 
28 U.S.c. § 1746. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the required evidence is unavailable or 
cannot be obtained, and therefore the petitioner is presumed ineligible pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(2). As such, the AAO will not consider the above listed evidence regarding the petitioner's 
awards as it does not conform to the regulatory requirements. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of "prizes or awards" 
in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in 
the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a 
single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular 
within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of 
experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining 
Page 7 
regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld USeIS' ability to 
interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See 
Maramjaya v. USC/S, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); 
Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an 
interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
In reference to the unpublished decisions that counsel references, it is not necessary to for the AAO to 
answer the question that counsel poses relating to awards received as part of a team as the petitioner has 
not submitted evidence that qualifies as primary evidence required by the regulation. However, while 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the 
administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. The AAO may consider the 
reasoning within the unpublished decision; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a 
matter of law. 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that he is a member of more than one association in her field. Second, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that the associations require outstanding achievements (in the plural) of their members. 
The final requirement is that admittance is judged, or adjudicated, by nationally or internationally 
recognized experts in their field. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to 
meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
(3) the====:".~ 
_and (5) the 
position of level three exammer m 
membership. The director determined that the petitioner failed 
criterion. 
The petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on his relation to teams and committees. 
However, based on the evidence on record, the teams and committees claimed by the petitioner do not 
satisfy the regulatory requirements. The regulation clearly requires "membership in associations in the 
field." Without evidence of committee membership requirements and evidence of whether admittance 
Page 8 
.I<."'.,,",,",U national or international experts in their disciplines or fields, the _ 
membership does not qualify under this criterion. Moreover, a 
committee is not an association. Under the present set of facts, appointment to this committee does not 
satisfy each of the regulatory requirements. Regarding the petitioner being a member of several teams, 
without evidence of team membership requirements and evidence of whether admittance to the team is 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields, the petitioner's 
membership on the aforementioned teams does not qualify under this criterion. Under the present set of 
facts, inclusion on these teams does not satisfy each of the regulatory requirements. 
As evidenced by the statutes, 
membership in that association merely requires that individual member applicants have reached the age 
of 18 years and have successfully passed exams for training courses. Honorary members may be an 
individual who significantly contributed to the development of teaching skiing and snowboarding. 
These requirements do not equate to outstanding achievements. 
The letter from indicates that he "can attest to [the petitioner's] membership in 
associations in skiing and ski coaching that require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields." 
assurances of membership requirements are insufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's ehgibility 
relating to this criterion. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Likewi the letter from . to the . 's membership in both the 
committee" and the the record lacks evidence to 
demonstrate that these entities qualifY as "associations," that each entity requires outstanding 
achievements of their members, or that admittance is judged by recognized national or international 
experts. Additionally, merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990);Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 at *5. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
This criterion contains three evidentiary requirements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the published 
material must primarily be about the petitioner and the contents must relate to the petitioner's work in 
the field under which he seeks classification as an immigrant. The published material must also appear 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media (in the plural). Professional or major 
trade publications are intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution and be published in a 
predominant national language. The final requirement is that the petitioner provide each published 
Page 9 
item's title, date, and author and if the published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must 
provide a translation that complies with the requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
The petitioner provides several articles for consideration under this criterion. Counsel's appellate brief 
states that the director concluded that the petitioner failed to meet this criterion without any analysis. 
However, a review of the director's decision indicates that the director concluded that the petitioner did 
meet this criterion. However, The AAO departs from the director's eligibility determination related to 
this criterion for the reasons outlined below. 
Regarding the foreign language article titled, "Mistakes Also Happen to Top Class Skiers," counsel 
claims this article appeared in Magazin Vecer and asserts this publication is the third largest daily 
newspaper in Slovakia. The article is about the petitioner and his work in his field. However, the 
petitioner provides no information related to the distribution data of this newspaper to establish this 
published material has a national rather than a regional reach within Slovakia. The unsupported 
assertions of counsel in a brief in reference to the status of a publication being major media are not 
evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 
188-89 n.6 (1984). Publications with only a regional reach are not considered to be major media and 
the petitioner has not established this publication is a professional or major trade journal as required by 
the regulation. Additionally, the translation of this document fails to comply with the regulatory 
requirement that each submitted published article include the date in which the work was published. 
The AAO will not consider this evidence as it fails to meet the required evidentiary standards. 
Additionally, the foreign language article titled, "They Eat Even the Soup with Chopstics [sic]" bears 
the same shortcomings and the AAO will also not consider this evidence. 
Regar~ of the article titled, appearing 
in the_ the article is not about the petitioner relating to his work in the field. The 
article, as the title suggests, is about then director of the _ ski school. The 
petitioner is merely mentioned in the closing paragraph of the article. As such, this evidence fails to 
satisfy the plain language requirements of this criterion. Additionally, the petitioner failed to provide 
sufficient evidence showing that qualifies as a form of major media. As such, he 
has not demonstrated that this evidence satisfies all the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner also submits three articles relating to team. Each article is 
about the team itself or a competition in which the team is contending. The articles do not mention the 
petitioner and are therefore, not about the petitioner and relating to his work in the field. Therefore, this 
evidence cannot meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. The record fails to reflect 
within which publication the article titled, 
appeared. Therefore, the AAO cannot determine if the published material derives from a professional 
or major trade . or other 'or media. Also, the failed to provide the full text of the 
article titled, The petitioner failed to provide 
the whole article as evidence as it stops in the middle of a sentence at the bottom of the page. Lastly, the 
Page 10 
petitioner did not provide evidence of the article's author as required by the plain language of the 
regulation. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion and the AAO departs from the director's determination that the petitioner satisfied this 
criterion's requirements. 
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 allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
This criterion requires not only that the petitioner was selected to serve as a judge, but also that the 
petitioner is able to produce evidence that he actually participated as a judge. The phrase "a judge" 
implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally, these duties must have been directly judging the work of 
others in the same or an allied field in which the petitioner seeks an immigrant classification within the 
present petition. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
As evidence relating to this criterion, the petitioner provides a letter from _ Counsel's 
appellate brief states that the director concluded that the petitioner failed to meet this criterion without 
any analysis. However, a review of the director's decision indicates that the director concluded that the 
petitioner did meet this criterion. However, The AAO departs from the director's eligibility 
determination related to this criterion for the reasons outlined below. 
also meets the criteria as a judge of the work of others as a 
selector for the also indicates that he appointed the petitioner to 
the "selector" position. letter, by itself, is insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner has 
UUl>:.J·lUJ<, regulatory requirements. The record contains no evidence that the _ 
currently employs or that he is authorized to verify former employee 
infonnation on behalf of this organization. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) states that, 
"Evidence relating to qualifying experience or training shall be in the fonn of letter(s) from current or 
former emplo~ the judging in the present case is part of the petitioner's work experience, the 
evidence from_ is insufficient. 
••••• letter may serve as a form of evidence to corroborate other evidence but it fails to 
demonstrate that the petitioner's duties as a "selector for the encompassed 
duties in a formal judging capacity as contemplated by the regulation. The evidence alleges that the 
petitioner participated as a judge without offering concrete evidence in support of the contentions. The 
record lacks any specific information relating to the du~ord does not show that 
the petitioner actually performed judging duties for the""-'- rather the letter merely 
repeats the regulatory language, which fails to satisfY the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd., at 1108; Aryr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 at *5. USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusoryassertions. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15. 
-Page 11 
Accordingly, the submitted evidence fails to satisfy the plain language requirements of this criterion and 
the AAO departs from the director's determination that the petitioner satisfied this criterion's 
requirements. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions (in the plural) to his field. These 
contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the 
contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final 
requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather 
than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3fd Cir. 1995) 
quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly affected or impacted the field. The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
The petitioner provides several expert letters contammg descriptions of the petitioner's 
accomplishments in addition to two articles. The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet 
the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Counsel questions the director's treatment and analysis of the submitted expert letters. Counsel claims 
the director merely summarized the expert's opinions and ignores the petitioner's achievements without 
indicating how the expert's opinions are incorrect. In her decision, the director expressly addressed the 
two expert letters that were submitted in response to the RFE. The director continued, however, that the 
documentation "[t]aken as a whole" did not demonstrate that the petitioner had made contributions of 
major significance in the field. The AAO will evaluate all of this evidence below, including the 
additional expert letters and articles. 
addressed in the director's decision are from and 
a member of the 2006 and 2010 opines that 
the petitioner meets . of extraordinary ability in skiing and lists the petitioner's 
accomplishments. _ includes the petitioner's accomplishments as a founding member of 
_ which he asserts is the first governing body of the ski industry in the petitioner's home 
country. ~t provide an explanation of how the petitioner's accomplishments as a 
founding member of_ are original in the field of skiing or serve as a contribution of major 
significance to the field of skiing. Although the petitioner provides secondary evidence indicating he is 
a founding member of _ through the foreign language article "Mistakes Also Happen," the 
petitioner failed to provide primary evidence from_ demonstrating his part in the organization's 
-Page 12 
founding. The petitioner has not demonstrated that primary evidence of his role in _ founding 
is unavailable or cannot be obtained, and therefore the petitioner may not rely on this secondary 
evidence to demonstrate his eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2). Of additional importance, the 
article "Mistakes Also Happen," appears to be accompanied by a blanket translator's certification that 
also accompanied all of the foreign language documents submitted with the initial petition. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § l03.2(b )(3) does not allow such a blanket certification and this article, in 
addition to its translation, are not probative and will not be accorded any evidentiary weight in this 
proceeding. 
_ also indicates that the petitioner is only one of five skiers to rise to the position of examiner, 
which he asserts is the highest level of certification in ski instruction. He does not, however, explain the 
impact that the petitioner has effected on competitive skiing within the position of examiner. The 
petitioner relies entirely on expert letters to demonstrate that he held the 'tion of examiner and failed 
~evidence from the entity under which examiners serve, 
__ It is also noteworthy that_listed the extraordinary ability criteria that he felt the 
petitioner satisfied, and he did not indicate that it was his opinion that the petitioner satisfied the original 
contributions of major significance criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), under which counsel indicates 
should be applied. Finally,_indicates that one of the petitioner's greatest 
achievements is his authorship of five ski manuals published by the _governing authority. 
However, does not explain the impact that the petitioner has effected on competitive skiing 
based on these manuals or assert that the petitioner's instruction manuals are widely used within the ski 
industry. Simply authoring instruction manuals that have no demonstrable effect on the industry cannot 
be construed to be contributions of major significance. 
winner of two also indicates that the petitioner 
has achieved the following: IS one of the governing body for ski 
instruction; (2) he has represented_ in international competitions; (3) he has attained the 
examiner position within ski instruction in and (4) he has been a member of elite teams such 
as the 2002 _ asserts that as one of the founding members of the 
ski instructors governing body, the petitioner "fostered the birth of Slovakia's highest and most 
respected association in the field." The petitioner failed to provide primary evidence demonstrating that 
he is one of the founding members of this association. It is noteworthy that _ listed the 
extraordinary ability criteria that he felt the petitioner satisfied, and he did not indicate that it was his 
opinion that the petitioner satisfied the original contributions of major significance criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), under which counsel indicates_letter should be applied. 
states: 
lists the petitioner's accomplishments and 
[The petitioner] built the ski industry in his home nation through the establishing [ sic] of 
a governing body, authorship of manuals on the sport, becoming one of only a few that 
became examiners to teach instructors at the highest level, participation as a member of 
Page 13 
numerous national teams, winner of national and international awards as a coach and a 
skier. 
also fails to explain how the petitioner's accomplishments, 
collectively, have exerted a significant impact on the petitioner's field. 
either individually or 
does not discuss 
_or how how the establishment of the governing body assisted in building the ski LH~~UU 
this affected the rest of the petitioner's field. It is also unclear from 
participation as a team member on national teams or winning national or international 
or demonstrates a significant impact on the field as a whole. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner provides two additional 
under this criterion. The first letter is from 
letter how 
is original 
_ The petitioner submitted what appears to be a photocopy letter resulting 
rV\T'Tu\t", of the letter being illegible. However asserts: "[The petitioner's] impact on 
skiing has been profound. As was part of communist Czechoslovakia until 1989, 
there was no ski industry. [The in the creation of commercial skiing and 
the development of the of also explains the petitioner's 
position on the was a result of his attainment of "the highest level of 
licensure in the world." however does not explain how the petitioner has used this 
position or these achievements to have an original impact of major significance on his field. Of 
additional importance, the petitioner failed to provide evidence of this licensure from the body under 
which it was issued. The record contains a foreign language version and a translation into English of a 
separate license. However, the translation of the license is insufficient as it bears no certification, which 
is mandated by 8 c.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, this license is not probative and will not be 
accorded any evidentiary weight in this The brief . the initial petition 
indicates the title of this license is, and 
_ The petitioner provided a 
_ acronym stands for of skiing and snowboarding," which 
differs from the evidence listed in the initial brief. As a result, the license cannot be considered to be 
primary evidence of the petitioner's attainment of "the highest level of licensure in the world." Claims 
relating to this licensure within letters is insufficient to establish that the petitioner actually 
attained the claimed licensure. similar to previous letters, discusses the petitioner's 
accomplishments in the field without providing an of the impact of these accomplishments 
on the field as a whole. It is noteworthy that listed the extraordinary ability criteria that 
he felt the petitioner satisfied, and he did not indicate that it was his opinion that the petitioner satisfied 
the original contributions of . significance criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), under which 
counsel indicates letter should be applied. 
appointment to the 
coaching skiing in 
uests the AAO to apply to this criterion is from 
explains that he is familiar with the petitioner from their 
_ discusses how the petitioner's 
commIttee to the development of the curriculum on 
and that the petitioner "determined how to coach skiing, the exam to coach 
-Page 14 
and who received licensure to coach it for his nation." On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's 
achievements should be viewed in totality and that: 
Few in skiing have done as much to impact an industry as [the petitioner] has upon 
skiing. As a world and national champion, to the creator of the commercial ski industry 
in his home country to author of ski manuals and national technical committee member, 
he is one of the very few at the pinnacle of the ski industry. 
The record does not contain evidence reflecting that the petitioner is "the creator of the commercial ski 
industry in his home country." The petitioner has failed to provide evidence that he either is a founding 
member of_ or that demonstrates being a founding member of_ is evidence that he is the 
creator of this industry in his home country. The record does establish the remaining achievements 
listed in counsel's above quote; however, the petitioner has not shown the impact of these achievements 
on the ski industry. The AAO has also considered the awards listed in counsel's quote within the 
awards criterion above in this decision. The AAO will not presume that evidence directly relating to 
one criterion is presumptive evidence that an alien meets a second criterion. Such a presumption would 
negate the statutory requirement for extensive evidence and the regulatory requirement that an alien 
meet at least three criteria. Where evidence directly relates to one of the regulatory criteria, USCIS is 
not obligated to consider that same evidence under a second criterion for which the relevance is not 
apparent. Significantly, section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act requires the submission of "extensive 
evidence." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien meet at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria. Additionally, the only element from counsel's quote that may be considered an 
original contribution is that the petitioner is the author of ski manuals. The AAO has already discussed 
these manuals above finding that simply authoring instruction manuals that have no demonstrable effect 
on the industry cannot be construed to be contributions of major significance. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing to 
Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998); 
Matter of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 218 
(BIA 1985)). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 
at 1332. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the 
petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N at 1136. 
Vague, solicited letters that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific examples of 
how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 
(9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that 
the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's] contributions in the 
field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. The 
opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. While such 
letters can provide important details about the petitioner'S skills, they cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
Page 15 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also 
Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 500, n.2. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they 
became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight 
than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major significance. 
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy through the submission 
of evidence. The first is that the petitioner is an author of scholarly articles (in the plural) in his field in 
which he intends to engage once admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. 
Scholarly articles generally report on original research or experimentation, involve scholarly 
investigations, contain substantial footnotes or bibliographies, and are peer reviewed. Additionally, 
while not required, scholarly articles are oftentimes intended for and written for learned persons in the 
field who possess a profound knowledge of the field. The second element is that the scholarly articles 
appear in one of the fOllowing: a professional publication, a major trade publication, or in a form of 
major media. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying each of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provides several instruction manuals, which counsel alleges are published by governing 
bodies and elsewhere. The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this 
criterion. 
Counsel's appellate brief references the letter from _ in which he indicates that the petitioner's 
authorship of manuals on skiing created for the national governing body are "equivalent to authorship of 
scholarly articles in a professional or trade publication." USCIS may not unilaterally impose novel 
substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5. Kazarian, 596 P.3d 
at 1221, citing Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 P.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir.2008). Thus, qualifying 
evidence under this criterion must consist of scholarly articles published in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
By referencing _ use of the word "equivalent," counsel may be attempting to assert that the 
manuals are comparable evidence pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4), which allows for the submission 
-Page 16 
of comparable evidence where the above standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) do not "readily apply" to 
the petitioner's occupation. In this case, counsel claims that at least seven of the regulatory criteria 
directly apply to the petitioner's occupation. Counsel has not asserted that even this criterion does not 
readily apply. Specifically, counsel has not asserted or documented that there are no professional or 
major trade publications or other major media that publish scholarly articles in the petitioner's field. 
Thus, he may not claim comparable evidence, in the alternative. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
Finally, counsel cites to the Kazarian decision for the proposition that the director improperly 
diminished the petitioner's evidence as it relates to his manuals considered under this criterion. 
However, analysis of the plain language of the regulation reveals that it is a mandated requirement that 
the evidence consist of scholarly articles in one of the required publication types. Nothing in Kazarian 
requires USCIS to consider material that does not meet the plain language requirements of the 
regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) under this criterion. 
The documents the petitioner submits under this criterion are: 
• 
• 
of October 1996; 
• 
It appears that each of these manuals is accompanied by a blanket translator's certification that also 
accompanied all of the foreign language documents submitted with the initial petition. The regulation 
at 8 c.F.R. § l03.2(b )(3) does not allow such a blanket certification and these manuals, in addition to 
the translations, are not probative and will not be accorded any evidentiary weight in this proceeding. 
Additionally, each of these manuals lacks evidence that it was published, or that it was published in the required publication type. 
The petitioner also submits a 1999/2000 manual. 
The record, however, lacks evidence was published in one of the 
required publication types. As such, this manual also fails to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Within the initial to the dated 
October 10,2006, and 2007, which allegedly authored. Both "manuals" 
appear to be slides from a presentation and each form of evidence lacks any indication that this material 
is published as counsel asserts. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 
3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). This evidence fails 
to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
As the petitioner has provided no evidence demonstrating that the submitted evidence satisfies the plain 
language requirements of this criterion, he may not rely upon his authored manuals as qualifying 
evidence relating to this criterion. 
Page 17 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
This criterion anticipates that a leading role should be apparent by its posItIon in the overall 
organizational hierarchy and that it be accompanied by the role's matching duties. A critical role should 
be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The 
petitioner's performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for organizations or 
establishments as a whole. The petitioner must demonstrate that the organizations or establishments 
(in the plural) have a distinguished reputation. While neither the regulation nor existing precedent 
speak to what constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines 
distinguished as, "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence.,,3 Dictionaries are not of themselves 
evidence, but they may be referred to as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. 
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 306 (1893). Therefore, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the 
organizations or establishments claimed under this criterion are marked by eminence, distinction, 
excellence, or a similar reputation. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements 
to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner claims he performed in a leading or critical 
a member of the 2002 
national teams from 1995 through 2002, and a B • ..,.'BU'''' 
The petitioner relies exclusively on expert letters to demonstrate that he meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the 
requirements of this criterion. 
as the 
selected the petitioner 
He also indicates 
that the petitioner created and program at letter from the 
petitioner's former employer demonstrates the petitioner performed in a lead 
However, the record lacks evidence that establishes that the is an organization 
that enjoys a distinguished reputation. As such, the petitioner's performance for this organization will 
not serve to satisfy the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The remaining expert letters are insufficient to demonstrate that the petItlOner has satisfied the 
requirements of this criterion. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. , 745 
F. Supp. at 15. The record contains no evidence that any of the remaining experts are employed by the 
organizations or establishments identified within counsel's initial brief. The record also lacks evidence 
demonstrating that any of the authors of the expert letters are authorized to verify former employee 
information on behalf any of the organizations that counsel identifies. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(g)(I) requires that, "Evidence relating to qualifying experience or training shall be in the form 
3 See )1ttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionan1distingl!i.~h~.(1, [accessed on March 27, 2012, a copy of which 
is incorporated into the record of proceeding.] 
-Page 18 
of letter(s) from current or former employer(s)." Consequently, the petitioner's reliance exclusively 
upon expert letters to demonstrate eligibility is insufficient. The submitted expert letters may serve as a 
form of evidence to corroborate other evidence, but the letters fail to demonstrate that the petitioner is 
able to satisfy the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires the petitioner to submit 
evidence of a "high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in 
the field." Average salary information for those performing work in a related but distinct occupation 
with different responsibilities is not a proper basis for comparison. As the petitioner is claiming to be 
among those in the top of his field, so must he demonstrate that his salary is among those in the top of 
his field. The petitioner must submit documentary evidence of the earnings of those in his occupation 
performing similar work at the top level of the field.4 The petitioner must present evidence of objective 
earnings data showing that he has earned a "high salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in 
comparison with those performing similar work during the same time period. See Matter of Price, 
20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional golfer's earnings versus other 
PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL 
enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Mllni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) 
(comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
The petitioner provides a job offer letter from a page from the Online Wage Library -
FLC Wage Search Results, a 2009 National Wage and Salary Survey from the National Ski Areas 
Association, and evidence from Mountain States Employment Council. The director determined that 
the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The letter from IS dated 
November 17, 2009. The letter offers the petitioner the position as a professional snow sports master 
educator in return for a $51,105.60 salary. First, the record contains no evidence that the petitioner had 
already commanded this salary as of the date of filing as required under the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). An offer of future salary or remuneration cannot serve as 
qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
4 While the AAO acknowledges that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in 
Matter of Racine, 1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated, "[T]he plain reading of the 
statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the 
hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the 
NHL. This interpretation is consistent with ... the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the 
discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99." 
Page 19 
Second, the FLC Wage Search Results relate to the broad category of coaches and scouts and does not 
directly relate to the petitioner's field or the position of professional snow sports master educator for a 
ski resort. Additionally, the FLC Wage data is limited to coaches and scouts in the north central 
Colorado nonmetropolitan area rather than "in relation to others in the field" as the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) plainly requires. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires 
evidence of "a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in 
the field." (Emphasis added.) Merely earning above average wages does not constitute a "high salary" 
or "significantly high remuneration." The petitioner did not document what the high end salaries are 
nationally in his occupation. Thus, the record is void of objective earnings data showing that the 
petitioner has earned a "high salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in comparison with those 
performing similar work during the same time period. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. In the 
present case, the evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he has received a high 
salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in the field. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
D. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must dearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
-Page 20 
final merits determination. 5 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Solfane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 
(3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 
103(a)(1) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 
C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) 
(holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).