dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics (Ski Instructor)

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImrnigrationServices
AdrninistrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
• [g data deleted to 20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W., MS 2090
I Washington,DC 20529-2090
preventclearlyarmarranted , U.S.Citizenship
invasionofpersonalPriVECY and Immigration
PUBLICCOPY services
DATE: APR 2 3 2012 Office: NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the documents
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquiry thatyou might haveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe law was inappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
information that you wish to have considered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopen. The
specific requirementsfor filing such a requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be
submittedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour caseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a fee of $630. Pleasebe aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requiresthat any motion must be filed
within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,NebraskaServiceCenter,deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an "alien of extraordinaryability" in athleticsas a ski instructor
and coach,pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the Immigrationand Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(A). The directordeterminedthe petitionerhadnot establishedthe sustainednationalor
internationalacclaimnecessarytoqualifyfor classificationasanalienof extraordinaryability.
Congresssetaveryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryabilityby requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's "sustainednationalor internationalacclaim" and present
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct and
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a
major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,theregulationoutlines
tencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). Thepetitionermust
submitqualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establish
thebasiceligibilityrequirements.
On appeal,thepetitioner.submitsa brief with no newevidence.For the reasonsdiscussedbelow,the
AAO upholdsthedirector'sultimatedeterminationthatthepetitionerhasnot establishedhis eligibility
for theclassificationsought.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priorityworkers.- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.- An alienis describedin thissubparagraphif -
(i) thealienhasextraordinaryability in thesciences,arts,education,business,or
athletics which has been demonstratedby sustainednational or international
acclaim and whose achievementshave been recognizedin the field through
extensivedocumentation,
(ii) the alien seeksto enterthe United Statesto continuework in the areaof
extraordinaryability, and
(iii) the alien'sentryinto the United Stateswill substantiallybenefitprospectively
theUnitedStates.
Page3
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very high standardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723 101stCong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability" refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewho haverisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.Id.;
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien'ssustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(thatis, a major,internationalrecognizedaward)or
throughthesubmissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the tencategoriesof evidence
listedat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinthCircuit (Ninth Circuit)reviewedthedenialof apetition
filed underthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010). Althoughthecourt
upheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition, the court took issuewith the AAO's evaluationof
evidencesubmittedto meeta given evidentiarycriterion.1 With respectto the criteria at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhile USCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at1121-22.
The court statedthat the AAO's evaluationrestedon an improperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAO did)," andif thepetitioner
failedto submitsufficientevidence,"the properconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof three typesof evidence(as the AAO concluded)."Id. at 1122(citing to
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazariansetsforth a two-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in the contextof a final merits determination. In this matter,the AAO will review the evidenceunder
theplainlanguagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed.As thepetitionerdid notsubmitqualifying
evidenceunderatleastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionisthatthepetitionerhasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
II. ANALYSIS
A. PreviousO-1Visa
While U.S. Citizenshipand Immigration Services(USCIS) has approvedat least one O-1
nonimmigrantvisa petition filed on behalfof the petitioner,the prior approvaldoesnot preclude
Specifically, the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterally imposednovel substantiveor evidentiary
requirementsbeyond 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).
Page4
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition basedon a different, if similarly phrased,
standard.It must be noted that many I-140 immigrant petitions are deniedafter USCIS approves
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See,e.g.,Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C.
2003);IKEA USv. USDept.ofJustice,48 F. Supp.2d 22 (D.D.C.1999);FedinBrothersCo.Ltd. v.
Sava,724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). BecauseUSCIS spendsless time reviewing I-129
nonimmigrantpetitions than I-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrantpetitions are simply
approvedin error. Q Data Consulting,Inc. v. INS, 293F. Supp.2d at 29-30;seealso TexasA&M
Univ. v. Upchurch,99 Fed.Appx. 556, 2004WL 1240482(5th Cir. 2004)(finding that prior
approvalsdo not precludeUSCIS from denying an extensionof the original visa basedon a
reassessmentof petitioner'squalifications).
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been
demonstrated,merelybecauseof prior approvalsthatmayhavebeenerroneous.See,e.g.,Matter of
Church ScientologyInternational, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurdto
suggestthat USCISor any agencymust treat acknowledgederrorsasbinding precedent.Sussex
Engg.Ltd. v.Montgomery,825F.2d1084,1090(6thCir. 1987),cert.denied,485U.S.1008(1988).
Furthermore,theAAO's authorityoverthe servicecentersis comparableto therelationshipbetween
a court of appealsand a district court. Even if a service center director had approvedthe
nonimmigrantpetitionson behalfof the beneficiary,the AAO would not be boundto follow the
contradictorydecision of a service center.Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL
282785(E.D.La.),affd, 248F.3d1139(5thCir. 2001),cert.denied,122S.Ct.51 (2001).
B. TranslationsSubmittedWith thePetition
Eachof theforeignlanguagedocumentsthatthepetitionersubmittedat the time he filed thepetition
appeartobeaccompaniedby asingleblanketcertificationfromthetranslatorratherthaneachdocument
beingaccompaniedby its owncertificationverifyingthecompletenessandaccuracyof thetranslation.
The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3)requiresthat: "Any documentcontainingforeign language
submitted to USCIS shall be accompaniedby a full English languagetranslation which the translator
hascertifiedascompleteandaccurate,andby thetranslator'scertificationthatheor sheis competentto
translatefromtheforeignlanguageintoEnglish."(Emphasisadded.)Theregulationdoesnotallowa
singlecertificationfrom thetranslatorfor numerousforeignlanguagedocumentsthatthetranslatordoes
not identify in the certification. The AAO is therefore,unableto determinewhetherthe evidence
supportsthepetitioner'sclaims. Accordingly,theforeignlanguagedocumentsaccompanyingtheinitial
petitionarenot probativeandwill not be accordedanyevidentiaryweightin this proceeding.This
determinationdoesnotaffectthenewevidencesubmittedin responseto therequestfor evidence(RFE)
thatbearsasinglecertificationfor eachpieceof evidence.
Page5
C. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentationof the alien's receipt of lessernationally or internationallyrecognizedprizes or
awardsfor excellencein thefzeldof endeavor.
This criterioncontainsseveralevidentiaryelementsthepetitionermustsatisfy. Accordingto theplain
languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),theevidencemustestablishthatthealienbethe
recipientof theprizesor the awards(in theplural).The clearregulatorylanguagerequiresthatthe
prizesor theawardsarenationallyor internationallyrecognized.Theplainlanguageof theregulation
alsorequiresevidencethateachprizeor awardis onefor excellencein thefield of endeavorratherthan
simplyfor participatingin or contributingto theevent. Thepetitionermustsatisfyall of theseelements
to meettheplain languagerequirementsof this criterion.
e o g t
additionto "mediakits" from severalphotographsof trophiesandawards evidence
relatingto the ompetition;andthehistorypagefrom
Counselalsosubmitsinformationfrom unpublishedAAO decisionsthat supportthe recognitionof
awardsthatarereceivedaspartof ateam. Eachof theaboveclaimedawardsdatefromeightyearsor
moreprior to thepetitionfiling date. Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto meettheplain
languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Severalof theexpertlettersassertclaimsof thenationalor internationalrecognitionof thepetitioner's
prizesor awards. USCISmay,in its discretion,useasadvisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedas
expert testimony. SeeMatter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988).
However,USCIS is ultimately responsiblefor making the final determinationregardingan alien's
eligibility for thebenefitsought.Id. Thesubmissionof lettersfrom expertssupportingthepetitionis
not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmayevaluatethecontentof thoselettersasto whether
theysupportthealien'seligibility. Seeid. at 795;seealsoMatter of V-K-,24 I&N Dec.500,n.2(BIA
2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony doesnot purport to be evidenceasto "fact"). USCIS may
evengivelessweightto anopinionthatis not corroborated,in accordwith otherinformationor is in
anywayquestionable.Id. at 795;seealsoMatterof Soffici,22I&N Dec.158,165(Comm'r.1998)
(citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Merely
repeatingthelanguageof thestatuteor regulationsdoesnot satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof.
FedinBros. Co., 724 F. Supp.at 1108,affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d.Cir. 1990);Avyr Associates,Inc. v.
Meissner,95 CIV. 10729MBM, 1997WL 188942,*5 (S.D.N.Y.Apr. 18,1997). Similarly,USCIS
neednot acceptprimarilyconclusoryassertions.1756,Inc.v.TheAttorneyGeneralof the United
States,745F.Supp.9,15(D.C.Dist.1990).
2Thepetitionerdoesnot claim to meetor submitevidencerelatingto theregulatorycategoriesof evidencenot
discussedin thisdecision.
Page6
With the exceptionof the evidencerelatingto the the petitioner's
primary evidenceof photographsof trophies and awards,all exhibit at least one of the below
evidentiarydefects:
• Theevidenceis distortedmaskingtherecipient'sname;
• Theevidencedoesnotlist thepetitioner'snameonthetrophyor theaward;or
• The evidenceis in a foreignlanguagebut is not accompaniedby the requiredtranslation
pursuantto8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).
Additionally,thenameof thepresentingentityor thecompetitionis not apparentfrom thesubmitted
evidence. The evidencerelatingto the oesdemonstratethat the
petitioneris therecipientof a qualifyingawardunderthis criterion. Theevidenceincludes:(1) this
competition'smedalreflecti afirst acefinish, (2) mediareportsof thepetitioner'steamfinishingin
first place,(3) a letterfrom erifying thatthepetitionerwasa memberon the ,
and(4)aletterfrom hoservedasajudgeatthe competition.
While thepetitionerdid submittwo foreignlanguagecertificatesasprimaryevidence,hedid notsubmit
the requiredcompletecertified translationsof thosecertificates. Regardingthe remainingclaimed
awards,thepetitionerhasprovidedno legibleprimaryevidencedemonstratingthepetitionerreceived
anyof theawards.In thiscase,while thepetitionersubmittedsecondaryevidencein theform of letters
confirminghe receivedvariousawards,the petitionerfailed to submitany documentaryevidence
demonstratingthatprimaryevidencedoesnotexistor cannotbeobtained,whichis requiredby8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(2);thefailureto dosocreatesapresumptionof ineligibility.
Regardless,thelettersthatthepetitionerprovidesarenotaffidavitsaseachis notswornto or affirmed
by the declarantbeforean officer authorizedto administeroathsor affirmationswho has,having
confirmedthe declarant'sidentity,administeredthe requisiteoathor affirmation. SeeBlack'sLaw
Dictionary 58 (9th Ed.,West2009). Nor, in lieu of havingbeensignedbeforeanofficer authorizedto
administeroathsor affirmations,do theycontaintherequisitestatement,permittedby Federallaw, that
the signers,in signingthe statements,certify the truth of the statements,underpenaltyof perjury.
28 U.S.C. § 1746. The petitioner has not demonstratedthat the requiredevidenceis unavailableor
cannot be obtained, and therefore the petitioner is presumedineligible pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(2).As such,theAAO will notconsidertheabovelistedevidenceregardingthepetitioner's
awardsasit doesnotconformto theregulatoryrequirements.
Theplainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)requiresevidenceof "prizesor awards"
in the plural, which is consistentwith the statutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidence. Section
203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct. Significantly,notall of thecriteriaat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)arewordedin
theplural. Specifically,theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(ix) onlyrequireserviceona
singlejudgingpanelor asinglehighsalary.Whenaregulatorycriterionwishestoincludethesingular
within theplural,it expresslydoessoaswhenit statesat8 C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)thatevidenceof
experiencemustbein theformof "letter(s)." Thus,theAAO caninferthatthepluralin theremaining
Page7
regulatorycriteria hasmeaning. In a differentcontext,federalcourtshaveupheldUSCIS' ability to
interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See
Maramjayav.USCIS,Civ. Act. No. 06-2158(RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008);
Snapnames.comInc. v. Chertoff,2006WL 3491005at *1, *10 (D. Or.Nov.30,2006)(upholdingan
interpretationthattheregulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreignequivalentdegree
at8 C.F.R.§204.5(1)(2)requiresasingledegreeratherthanacombinationof academiccredentials).
In referenceto theunpublisheddecisionsthatcounselreferences,it is notnecessaryto for theAAO to
answerthequestionthatcounselposesrelatingto awardsreceivedaspartof ateamasthepetitionerhas
not submittedevidencethatqualifiesasprimaryevidencerequiredby theregulation. However,while
8 C.F.R.§ 103.3(c)providesthatAAO precedentdecisionsarebindingon all USCISemployeesin the
administrationof theAct,unpublisheddecisionsarenotsimilarlybinding.TheAAO mayconsiderthe
reasoningwithin theunpublisheddecision;however,theanalysisdoesnot haveto be followedasa
matterof law.
As such,thepetitionerhasnot submittedevidencethatmeetstheplain languagerequirementsof this
cnterion.
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for which classificationis
sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof their members,asjudgedbyrecognizednational
or internationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesorfields.
Thiscriterioncontainsseveralevidentiaryelementsthepetitionermustsatisfy.First,thepetitionermust
demonstratethatheis amemberof morethanoneassociationin herfield. Second,thepetitionermust
demonstratethatthe associationsrequireoutstandingachievements(in theplural) of their members.
The final requirementis that admittanceis judged,or adjudicated,by nationallyor internationally
recognizedexpertsin theirfield. Thepetitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto
meettheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
The petitioner provides letters from experts in the industry, news articles, website printouts from three
associations,andphotographsthat are reportedlyof the petitionerwith the at the
Thepetitionerclaimsmembershipin thefollowing: (1) the
the
the
The petitioneralsoc aimst e
position of level three examinerin er t is cri erion. A position, however,is not a
membership.The directordeterminedthat the petitionerfailed to meetthe requirementsof this
criterion.
The petitionerclaimedeligibility for this criterionbasedon his relationto teamsandcommittees.
However,basedontheevidenceonrecord,theteamsandcommitteesclaimedby thepetitionerdonot
satisfytheregulatoryrequirements.Theregulationclearlyrequires"membershipin associationsin the
field." Withoutevidenceof committeemembershiprequirementsandevidenceof whetheradmittance
Page8
is 'ud ed b reco ized nationalor internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor fields, the
Committee membershipdoes not qualify under this criterion. Moreover, a
committeeis notanassociation.Underthepresentsetof facts,appointmentto thiscommitteedoesnot
satisfyeachof theregulatoryrequirements.Regardingthepetitionerbeingamemberof severalteams,
without evidenceof teammembershiprequirementsandevidenceof whetheradmittanceto theteamis
judged by recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor fields, the petitioner's
membershipon theaforementionedteamsdoesnotqualify underthiscriterion.Underthepresentsetof
facts,inclusionontheseteamsdoesnotsatisfyeachof theregulatoryrequirements.
As evidencedby the
in thatassociationmerelyrequiresthatindividualmemberapplicantshavereachedtheage
of 18yearsandhavesuccessfullypassedexamsfor trainingcourses.Honorarymembersmaybe an
individualwho significantlycontributedto the developmentof teachingskiing and snowboarding.
Theserequirementsdonotequateto outstandingachievements.
The letter from indicatesthat he "can attestto [the petitioner's]membershipin
associationsin skiing and ski coachingthat requireoutstandingachievementsof their members,as
judgedby recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor fields."
assurancesof membershiprequirementsare insufficient to demonstratethe petitioner's eligibility
relatingto thiscriterion. Goingonrecordwithoutsupportingdocumentaryevidenceis notsufficientfor
purposesof meetingtheburdenof proofin theseproceedings.Matterof Soffici,22 I&N Dec.at 165.
Likewise, regardingthe letter from relating to the petitioner's membershipin both the
"National Technical committee" and the ' the record lacks evidenceto
demonstratethat theseentities qualify as "associations,"that each entity requiresoutstanding
achievementsof their members,or thatadmittanceis judgedby recognizednationalor international
experts.Additionally,merelyrepeatingthelanguageof thestatuteor regulationsdoesnot satisfythe
petitioner'sburdenof proof. FedinBros.Co.,Ltd., 724F. Supp.at 1108,aff'd,905F. 2d 41 (2d.Cir.
1990);AvyrAssociates,Inc., 1997WL 188942at*5.
Therefore, the petitioner hasnot submitted evidencethat meetsthe plain languagerequirementsof this
criterion.
Publishedmaterial about the alien in professionalor major tradepublications or other major
media, relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classification is sought. Such evidence
shallincludethetitle,date,andauthorof thematerial,andanynecessarytranslation.
This criterioncontainsthreeevidentiaryrequirementsthepetitionermustsatisfy. First,thepublished
materialmustprimarilybeaboutthepetitionerandthecontentsmustrelateto thepetitioner'swork in
thefield underwhichheseeksclassificationasanimmigrant.Thepublishedmaterialmustalsoappear
in professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia(in theplural). Professionalor major
tradepublicationsareintendedfor expertsin thefield or in theindustry.To qualifyasmajormedia,the
publicationshould have significantnational or internationaldistributionand be publishedin a
predominantnationallanguage. The final requirementis that the petitionerprovide eachpublished
Page9
item's title, date, and author and if the published item is in a foreign language,the petitioner must
provide a translationthat complieswith the requirementsfound at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The
petitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meettheplainlanguagerequirements
of thiscriterion.
Thepetitionerprovidesseveralarticlesfor considerationunderthiscriterion. Counsel'sappellatebrief
statesthat the directorconcludedthatthepetitionerfailed to meetthis criterionwithout any analysis.
However,areviewof thedirector'sdecisionindicatesthatthedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerdid
meetthis criterion. However,TheAAO departsfrom thedirector'seligibility determinationrelatedto
thiscriterionfor thereasonsoutlinedbelow.
Regardingthe foreign languagearticle titled, counsel
claimsthis articleappearedin MagazinVecerandassertsthis publicationis the third largestdaily
newspaperin Slovakia. The articleis aboutthepetitionerandhis work in his field. However,the
petitionerprovidesno informationrelatedto the distributiondataof this newspaperto establishthis
publishedmaterialhasa nationalratherthan a regionalreachwithin Slovakia. The unsupported
assertionsof counselin a brief in referenceto thestatusof a publicationbeingmajormediaarenot
evidenceandthusarenot entitledto any evidentiaryweight. SeeINS v. Phinpathya,464 U.S. 183,
188-89n.6(1984). Publicationswith only a regionalreacharenotconsideredto bemajormediaand
thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthispublicationis aprofessionalor majortradejournalasrequiredby
the regulation. Additionally,the translationof this documentfails to complywith the regulatory
requirementthateachsubmittedpublishedarticleincludethedatein which thework waspublished.
The AAO will not considerthis evidenceas it fails to meetthe requiredevidentiarystandards.
Additionally,theforeignlanguagearticletitled,"TheyEatEventheSoupwith Chopstics[sic]" bears
thesameshortcomingsandtheAAO will alsonotconsiderthisevidence.
Regardingthephotocopyof thearticletitled, ' appeanng
in the the article is not aboutthe etitionerrelatingto his work in the field. The
article,asthetitle suggests,is about thendirectorof the The
petitioner is merely mentioned in the closing paragraphof the article. As such, this evidencefails to
satisfytheplain languagerequirementsof this criterion. Additionally, thepetitionerfailed to provide
sufficientevidenceshowingthatthe qualifiesasa form of majormedia. As such,he
hasnotdemonstratedthatthisevidencesatisfiesall theplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Thepetitioneralsosubmitsthreearticlesrelatingto the Eacharticleis
abouttheteamitselfor acompetitionin whichtheteamis contending.Thearticlesdonotmentionthe
petitionerandaretherefore,notaboutthepetitionerandrelatingto hisworkin thefield. Therefore,this
evidencecannotmeetthe plain languagerecuirementsof this criterion. The recordfails to reflect
within which publicationthe articletitled,
appeared.Therefore,theAAO cannotdetermineif thepublishedmaterialderivesfrom a professional
ormajortradepublicationorothermajormedia.Also,thepetitionerfailedtoprovidethefull textof the
articletitled,' ' Thepetitionerfailedto provide
thewholearticleasevidenceasit stopsin themiddleof asentenceatthebottomof thepage.Lastly,the
Page10
petitionerdid not provide evidenceof the article's authoras requiredby the plain languageof the
regulation.
Accordingly,thepetitionerhasnot submittedevidencethatmeetstheplain languagerequirementsof
this criterionandthe AAO departsfrom the director'sdeterminationthatthepetitionersatisfiedthis
criterion'srequirements.
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation, either individuallyor on a panel, as ajudge of the work of
othersin thesameor analliedjield of specificationfor whichclassificationissought.
This criterionrequiresnot only thatthepetitionerwasselectedto serveasajudge,but alsothatthe
petitioneris ableto produceevidencethathe actuallyparticipatedasajudge. Thephrase"a judge"
impliesa formal designationin a judging capacity,eitheron a panelor individuallyasspecifiedat
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv).Additionally,thesedutiesmusthavebeendirectlyjudgingthework of
othersin thesameor analliedfield in which thepetitionerseeksanimmigrantclassificationwithin the
presentpetition. Thepetitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meettheplain
languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
As evidencerelatingto this criterion,the petitionerprovidesa letter from Counsel's
appellatebrief statesthatthedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerfailed to meetthis criterionwithout
anyanalysis.However,areviewof thedirector'sdecisionindicatesthatthedirectorconcludedthatthe
petitioner did meet this criterion. However, The AAO departsfrom the director's eligibility
determinationrelatedtothiscriterionfor thereasonsoutlinedbelow.
letterstates," e titioner] alsomeetsthe criteriaasajudge of the work of othersasa
selectorfor the alsoindicatesthatheappointedthepetitionerto
the"selector"position. y itself,is insufficientto demonstratethatthepetitionerhas
satisfiedthe judging regulatoryrequirements. The recordcontainsno evidencethat the
currently employs M or that he is authorizedto verify former employee
information on behalf of this organization. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1) statesthat,
"Evidence relating to qualifying experienceor training shall be in the form of letter(s) from current or
formeremployer(s)."As thejudgingin thepresentcaseis partof thepetitioner'swork experience,the
evidencefrom insufficient.
letter may serveas a form of evidenceto corroborateother evidence,but it fails to
demonstratethat the petitioner'sdutiesas a "selectorfor the encompassed
dutiesin a formaljudgingcapacityascontemplatedby theregulation.Theevidenceallegesthatthe
petitionerparticipatedasajudgewithoutofferingconcreteevidencein supportof thecontentions.The
recordlacksanyspecificinformationrelatingto thedutiesin uestion.Therecorddoesnotshowthat
thepetitioneractuallyperformedjudgingdutiesfor the ratherthelettermerely
repeatstheregulatorylanguage,whichfailsto satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof. FedinBros.Co.,
Ltd., at 1108;Avyr Associates,Inc., 1997WL 188942at *5. USCISneednot acceptprimarily
conclusoryassertions.1756,Inc.,745F.Supp.at15.
Page11
Accordingly,thesubmittedevidencefails to satisfytheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterionand
the AAO departsfrom the director's determinationthat the petitioner satisfied this criterion's
requirements.
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
Theplain languageof thisregulatorycriterioncontainsmultipleevidentiaryelementsthatthepetitioner
mustsatisfy. Thefirst is evidenceof thepetitioner'scontributions(in theplural)to his field. These
contributionsmust havealreadybeenrealizedratherthan beingpotential,future contributions. The
petitionermustalsodemonstratethathiscontributionsareoriginal. Theevidencemustestablishthatthe
contributionsare scientific, scholarly,artistic, athletic,or business-relatedin nature. The final
requirementis thatthecontributionsriseto thelevelof majorsignificancein thefield asawhole,rather
thanto aprojector to anorganization.Thephrase"majorsignificance"is notsuperfluousand,thus,it
hassomemeaning.Silvermanv.EastrichMultipleInvestorFund,L.P.,51F.3d28,31(3rd
quotedin APWU v. Potter,343 F.3d 619, 626 (2"dCir.Sep15, 2003). Contributionsof major
significanceconnotesthatthepetitioner'swork hassignificantlyaffectedor impactedthefield. The
petitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meettheplainlanguagerequirements
of thiscriterion.
The petitioner provides several expert letters containing descriptions of the petitioner's
accomplishmentsin additionto two articles. The directordeterminedthatthepetitionerfailed to meet
theplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Counselquestionsthedirector'streatmentandanalysisof thesubmittedexpertletters. Counselclaims
thedirectormerelysummarizedtheexpert'sopinionsandignoresthepetitioner'sachievementswithout
indicatinghow theexpert'sopinionsareincorrect. In herdecision,thedirectorexpresslyaddressedthe
two expertlettersthatweresubmittedin responseto theRFE. Thedirectorcontinued,however,thatthe
documentation"[t]aken as a whole" did not demonstratethat the petitioner had made contributions of
major significancein the field. The AAO will evaluateall of this evidencebelow, including the
additionalexpertlettersandarticles.
the petitioner me ition of extraordinaryability in skiing and lists the petitioners
accomlishments. includesthe petitioner'saccomplishmentsasa foundingmemberof
which he assertsis the first governingbody of the ski industryin the petitioner'shome
country. doesnot providean explanationof how the petitioner'saccomplishmentsasa
foundingmemberof areoriginal in the field of skiing or serveas a contributionof major
significancetothefieldof skiing.Althoughthepetitionerprovidessecondaryevidenceindicatingheis
a foundingmemberof throughthe foreignlanguagearticle"MistakesAlso Happen,"the
petitionerfailedto provideprimaryevidencefrom l emonstratinghispartin theorganization's
Page12
founding. Thepetitionerhasnot demonstratedthatprimaryevidenceof his role in s founding
is unavailableor cannotbe obtained,and thereforethe petitionermay not rely on this secondary
evidenceto demonstratehis eligibility. See8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2). Of additionalimportance,the
article"MistakesAlso Happen,"appearsto be accompaniedby a blankettranslator'scertificationthat
also accompaniedall of the foreignlanguagedocumentssubmittedwith the initial petition. The
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3)doesnot allow sucha blanketcertificationandthis article,in
additionto its translation,arenot probativeandwill not be accordedanyevidentiaryweightin this
proceeding.
alsoindicatesthatthepetitioneris onlyoneof five skiersto riseto thepositionof examiner,
whichheassertsis thehighestlevelof certificationin ski instruction.He doesnot,however,explainthe
impact that the petitionerhaseffectedon competitiveskiing within the position of examiner. The
petitionerreliesentirelyonexpertlettersto demonstratethatheheldthepositionof examinerandfailed
to provideevidencefrom the entity underwhich examinersserve,the
Committee.It is alsonoteworthythat listedtheextraordinaryabilitycriteriathathefelt the
petitionersatisfied,andhedidnotindicatethatit washisopinionthatthepetitionersatisfiedtheoriginal
contributionsof majorsignificancecriterionat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v),underwhichcounselindicates
slettershouldbeapplied.Finally, ndicatesthatoneof thepetitioner'sgreatest
achievementsis his authorshipof five ski manualspublishedby the
However, doesnotexplaintheimpactthatthepetitionerhaseffectedoncompetitiveskiing
basedonthesemanualsor assertthatthepetitioner'sinstructionmanualsarewidelyusedwithintheski
industry.Simplyauthoringinstructionmanualsthathavenodemonstrableeffectontheindustrycannot
beconstruedtobecontributionsof majorsignificance.
alsoindicatesthatthepetitioner
hasachievedthe following: (1) he is oneof the foundingmembersof the governingbody for ski
instruction;(2) he has represented in internationalcompetitions;(3) he has attainedthe
examiner ositionwithin ski instructionin and(4) hehasbeenamemberof elite teamssuch
asthe assertsthatasoneo ' g membersof the
ski instructors governing body, the petitioner "fostered the birth of ighest and most
respectedassociationin the field." The petitioner failed to provide primary evidencedemonstratingthat
he is oneof the foundingmembersof this association.It is noteworthythat listedthe
extraordinaryability criteria thathe felt thepetitionersatisfied,andhe did not in icae a it washis
opinion thatthe petitionersatisfiedtheoriginal contributionsof major significancecriterion at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v),underwhichcounselindicates ettershouldbeapplied.
liststhepetitioner'saccomplishmentsand
states:
[Thepetitioner]builttheskiindustryin hishomenationthroughtheestablishing[sic]of
agoverningbody,authorshipof manualsonthesport,becomingoneof onlyafewthat
becameexaminersto teachinstructorsatthehighestlevel,participationasamemberof
numerousnationalteams, anda
skier.
also fails to explain how the petitioner's accomplishments,either individually or
collectively,haveexerteda significantimpacton thepetitioner'sfield. doesnot discuss
how theestablishmentof thegoverningbodyassistedin buildingtheski i r how
this affectedthe rest of the petitioner's field. It is also unclearfrom etter how
participationasateammemberonnationalteamsor winningnationalor internationalawardsis original
or demonstratesasignificantimpactonthefield asawhole.
In responseto thedirector'sRFE,thepetitionerprovidestwo additionalexpertlettersfor consideration
under this criterion. The first letter is from
Federation.Thepetitionersubmittedwhatappearstobea hotocoy of (:sulting
in portionsof theletterbeingillegible. However, sserts:"[Thepetitioner's]impacton
asbeenprofound.As
therewasno ski industry. [Thepetitioner]wasinstrumentalin thecreationof commercialskiingand
thosidevelonhen 1so pla shighesetitioners
licensurein the world." howeverdoesnot explainhow the petitionerhasusedthis
positionor theseachievementsto havean original impactof major significanceon his field. Of
additionalimportance,thepetitionerfailedto provideevidenceof this licensurefrom thebodyunder
whichit wasissued.TherecordcontainsaforeignlanguageversionandatranslationintoEnglishof a
separatelicense.However,thetranslationof thelicenseis insufficientasit bearsnocertification,which
is mandatedby 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).Accordingly,this licenseis not probativeandwill not be
accordedany evidentiaryweight in this proceeding. The brief accompanyingthe initial petition
indicatesthe title of this license is, and
Licenses." The petitionerprovideda intout from the website,which indicatesthat the
acronymstandsfor ' which
differsfrom theevidencelistedin theinitial brief. As a result,thelicensecannotbeconsideredto be
primary evidenceof the petitioner's attainmentof "the highest level of licensurein the world." Claims
relating to this licensurewithin e rt letters is insufficient to establishthat the petitioner actually
attainedthe claimedhcensure. similarto previousletters,discussesthepetitioner's
accomplishmentsin thefieldwithoutprovidinganexplanationof theimpactof theseaccomplishments
on the field asa whole. It is noteworthythat listed the extraordinaryability criteria that
hefelt thepetitionersatisfied,andhedidnotindicatethatit washisopinionthatthepetitionersatisfied
the original contributionsof major significancecriterionat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v),underwhich
counselindicates ettershouldbeapplied.
r counselr eststheAAO to applyto thiscriterionis from former
xplains that he is familiar with the petitionerfrom their
attendanceat the . discusseshow the petitioner's
appointmentto the ommitteeled to the developmentof the curriculumon
coachingskiingin andthatthepetitioner"determinedhowto coachskiing,theexamto coach
Page14
andwho receivedlicensureto coachit for his nation." On appeal,counselassertsthatthepetitioner's
achievementsshouldbeviewedin totality andthat:
Few in skiin havedoneas much to impactan industryas [the petitioner] hasupon
skiing. As a to thecreatorof thecommercialski industry
in hishomecountryto aut or o i manualsandnationaltechnicalcommitteemember,
heis oneof theveryfewatthepinnacleof theskiindustry.
Therecorddoesnot containevidencereflectingthatthepetitioneris "the creatorof thecommercialski
industryin hishomecountry." Thepetitionerhasfailedtoprovideevidencethatheeitheris afounding
memberof thatdemonstratesbeingafoundingmemberof is evidencethatheis the
creatorof this industryin his homecountry. The recorddoesestabis t e remainingachievements
listedin counsel'sabovequote;however,thepetitionerhasnotshowntheimpactof theseachievements
on theski industry. The AAO hasalsoconsideredthe awardslistedin counsel'squotewithin the
awardscriterionabovein this decision.TheAAO will notpresumethatevidencedirectlyrelatingto
onecriterionis presumptiveevidencethatanalienmeetsasecondcriterion. Suchapresumptionwould
negatethe statutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidenceandthe regulatoryrequirementthat an alien
meetat leastthreecriteria. Whereevidencedirectlyrelatesto oneof theregulatorycriteria,USCISis
not obligatedto considerthatsameevidenceundera secondcriterionfor which therelevanceis not
apparent. Significantly,section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act requiresthe submissionof "extensive
evidence."Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatanalienmeetat leastthreeof theten
regulatorycriteria. Additionally, the only elementfrom counsel'squotethat may be consideredan
originalcontributionis thatthepetitioneris theauthorof skimanuals.TheAAO hasalreadydiscussed
thesemanualsabovefindingthatsimplyauthoringinstructionmanualsthathavenodemonstrableeffect
ontheindustrycannotbeconstruedtobecontributionsof majorsignificance.
The Boardof ImmigrationAppeals(BIA) hasheldthattestimonyshouldnot be disregardedsimply
becauseit is "self-serving."See,e.g.,Matter of S-A-,22 I&N Dec.1328,1332(BIA 2000)(citingto
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
corroborativetestimonialanddocumentaryevidence,whereavailable."Matter of S-A-,22 I&N Dec.
at1332.If testimonialevidencelacksspecificity,detail,or credibility,thereis a greaterneedfor the
petitionerto submitcorroborativeevidence.Matterof Y-B-,21I&N at 1136.
Vague,solicitedlettersthatdo not specificallyidentify contributionsor providespecificexamplesof
howthosecontributionsinfluencedthefieldareinsufficient.Kazarianv. USCIS,580F.3d1030,1036
(9thCir.2009)aff'dinpart 596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).In 2010,theKazariancourtreiteratedthat
theAAO's conclusionthat"lettersfromphysicsprofessorsattestingto [thealien's]contributionsin the
field" wasinsufficientwas"consistentwith therelevantregulatorylanguage."596F.3dat 1122.The
opinionsof expertsin thefield arenot withoutweightandhavebeenconsideredabove. While such
letterscanprovideimportantdetailsaboutthepetitioner'sskills,theycannotform thecornerstoneof a
successfulextraordinaryability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion,use as advisoryopinions
Page15
statementssubmittedas experttestimony. SeeMatter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec.at 795.
However,USCIS is ultimately responsiblefor making the final determinationregardingan alien's
eligibility for thebenefitsought.Id. Thesubmissionof lettersfromexpertssupportingthepetitionis
not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmay, asthis decisionhasdoneabove,evaluatethe
contentof thoselettersasto whetherthey supportthe alien's eligibility. Seeid. at 795; seealso
Matterof V-K-,24 I&N Dec.at500,n.2. USCISmayevengivelessweightto anopinionthatis not
corroborated,in accordwith otherinformationor is in anyway questionable.Id. at 795;seealso
Matterof Soffici, 22I&N Dec.at 165. Thus,the contentof the writers' statementsandhow they
becameawareof the petitioner's reputationare important considerations. Even when written by
independentexperts,letterssolicitedby analienin supportof animmigrationpetitionareof lessweight
thanpreexisting,independentevidenceof originalcontributionsof majorsignificance.
In view of the foregoing,the petitionerhas not submittedevidencethat meetsthe plain language
requirementsof thiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien's authorshipof scholarlyarticles in thefield, in professionalor major trade
publicationsor othermajormedia.
Thiscriterioncontainsmultipleevidentiaryelementsthepetitionermustsatisfythroughthesubmission
of evidence.Thefirst is thatthepetitioneris anauthorof scholarlyarticles(in theplural)in hisfield in
which he intendsto engageonce admittedto the United Statesas a lawful permanentresident.
Scholarly articles generally report on original researchor experimentation,involve scholarly
investigations,containsubstantialfootnotesor bibliographies,andarepeerreviewed. Additionally,
while not required,scholarlyarticlesareoftentimesintendedfor andwrittenfor learnedpersonsin the
field whopossessaprofoundknowledgeof thefield. Thesecondelementis thatthescholarlyarticles
appearin oneof thefollowing: a professionalpublication,a majortradepublication,or in a form of
majormedia. Thepetitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingeachof theseelementsto meettheplain
languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
The petitioner provides severalinstruction manuals,which counselallegesare published by governing
bodiesandelsewhere.Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto meettherequirementsof this
criterion.
Counsel's appellatebrief referencesthe letter from in which he indicatesthat the petitioner's
authorshipof manualsonskiingcreatedfor thenationalgoverningbodyare"equivalentto authorshipof
scholarlyarticlesin a professionalor tradepublication." USCISmaynot unilaterallyimposenovel
substantiveor evidentiaryrequirementsbeyondthosesetforthat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5.Kazarian,596F.3d
at 1221,citingLoveKoreanChurchv. Chertoff;549F.3d749,758(9thCir.2008).Thus,qualifying
evidenceunderthiscriterionmustconsistof scholarlyarticlespublishedin professionalor majortrade
publicationsor othermajormedia.
By referencing useof theword"equivalent,"counselmaybeattemptingto assertthatthe
manualsarecomparableevidencepursuantto 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(4),whichallowsfor thesubmission
Page16
of comparableevidencewheretheabovestandardsat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)do not"readilyapply"to
thepetitioner'soccupation.In this case,counselclaimsthatat leastsevenof the regulatorycriteria
directlyapplyto thepetitioner'soccupation.Counselhasnotassertedthateventhiscriteriondoesnot
readilyapply. Specifically,counselhasnot assertedor documentedthatthereareno professionalor
majortradepublicationsor othermajormediathatpublishscholarlyarticlesin thepetitioner'sfield.
Thus,hemaynotclaimcomparableevidence,in thealternative.See8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(4).
Finally, counselcites to the Kazarian decisionfor the propositionthat the director improperly
diminishedthe petitioner's evidenceas it relatesto his manualsconsideredunder this criterion.
However,analysisof theplain languageof theregulationrevealsthatit is amandatedrequirementthat
theevidenceconsistof scholarlyarticlesin oneof therequiredpublicationtypes.Nothingin Kazarian
requiresUSCIS to considermaterial that does not meet the plain languagerequirementsof the
regulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi)underthiscriterion.
Thedocumentsthepetitionersubmitsunderthiscriterionare:
It appearsthateachof thesemanualsis accompaniedby a blankettranslator'scertificationthatalso
accompaniedall of theforeignlanguagedocumentssubmittedwith theinitial petition. Theregulation
at 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3)doesnot allowsucha blanketcertificationandthesemanuals,in additionto
thetranslations,arenotprobativeandwill notbeaccordedanyevidentiaryweightin thisproceeding.
Additionally,eachof thesemanualslacksevidencethatit waspublished,orthatit waspublishedin the
requiredpublicationtype.
Thepetitioneralsosubmitss
The record,however,lacksevidencedemonstratingthat the materialwas publishecm oneof the
required publication types. As such, this manual also fails to meet the plain languagerequirementsof
thiscriterion.
Within the initial filing brief, counselrefersto the
hichthepetitionerallegedlyauthored.Both"manuals"
appearto beslidesfromapresentationandeachformof evidencelacksanyindicationthatthismaterial
is publishedas counselasserts. The unsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence.
Matterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.at533,534n.2(BIA 1988);MatterofLaureano,19I&N Dec.1,
3 n.2(BIA 1983);MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).Thisevidencefails
tomeettheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
As thepetitionerhasprovidednoevidencedemonstratingthatthesubmittedevidencesatisfiestheplain
languagerequirementsof this criterion,he may not rely upon his authoredmanualsas qualifying
evidencerelatingtothiscriterion.
Page17
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizationsor
establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
This criterion anticipatesthat a leadingrole should be apparentby its position in the overall
organizationalhierarchyandthatit beaccompaniedby therole'smatchingduties.A critical roleshould
be apparentfrom the petitioner'simpact on the organizationor the establishment'sactivities. The
petitioner'sperformancein this role shouldestablishwhethertherole wascritical for organizationsor
establishmentsas a whole. The petitionermust demonstratethat the organizationsor establishments
(in the plural) have a distinguishedreputation. While neitherthe regulationnor existingprecedent
speakto what constitutesa distinguishedreputation,Merriam-Webster'sonline dictionary defines
distinguishedas,"markedby eminence,distinction,or excellence."3Dictionariesarenot of themselves
evidence,but they may be referred to as aids to the memory and understandingof the court.
Nix v.Hedden,149U.S.304,306(1893). Therefore,it is thepetitioner'sburdento demonstratethatthe
organizationsor establishmentsclaimedunderthis criterion are markedby eminence,distinction,
excellence,or asimilarreputation.Thepetitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelements
to meettheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
The petitionerclaimshe performedin a leadingor critical role asthe headcoachof the
•
The petitionerrelies exclusivelyon expertlettersto demonstratethat he meetsthe plain language
requirementsof this criterion. The director determinedthat the petitioner failed to meet the
requirementsof thiscriterion.
indicatesthathepersonallyselectedthepetitioner
asthe He alsoindicates
thatthepetitionercreatedandcoordinatedtheski racingprogramat his facility. This letterfrom the
petitioner'sformeremployerdemonstratesthepetitionerperformedin a leadrolefor thisorganization.
However, the record lacks evidencethat establishesthat the is an organization
that enjoys a distinguished reputation. As such, the petitioner's performancefor this organization will
notservetosatisfytheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
The remaining expert letters are insufficient to demonstratethat the petitioner has satisfied the
requirementsof thiscriterion. USCISneednot acceptprimarilyconclusoryassertions.1756,Inc., 745
F.Supp.at 15. Therecordcontainsnoevidencethatanyof theremainingexpertsareemployedby the
organizationsor establishmentsidentifiedwithin counsel'sinitial brief. Therecordalsolacksevidence
demonstratingthat any of the authorsof the expertlettersareauthorizedto verify former employee
informationon behalfanyof the organizationsthatcounselidentifies. The regulationat 8C.F.R.
§204.5(g)(1)requiresthat,"Evidencerelatingto qualifyingexperienceor trainingshallbein theform
3Seehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguislJed,[accessedon March27,2012,a copyof which
isincorporatedinto therecordof proceeding.]
Page18
of letter(s)from currentor formeremployer(s)."Consequently,the petitioner'srelianceexclusively
uponexpertlettersto demonstrateeligibility is insufficient. Thesubmittedexpertlettersmayserveasa
form of evidenceto corroborateotherevidence,but thelettersfail to demonstratethatthepetitioneris
ableto satisfytheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Therefore,thepetitionerhasnotsubmittedevidencethatmeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof this
criterion.
Evidencethat thealien hascommandeda high salaryor othersignificantlyhigh remunerationfor
services,in relationto othersin thefield.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix)requiresthe petitionerto submit
evidenceof a "high salaryor othersignificantlyhighremunerationfor services,in relationto othersin
thefield." Averagesalaryinformationfor thoseperformingwork in a relatedbut distinctoccupation
with differentresponsibilitiesis notaproperbasisfor comparison.As thepetitioneris claimingto be
amongthosein thetop of his field, somusthedemonstratethathis salaryis amongthosein thetop of
hisfield. Thepetitionermustsubmitdocumentaryevidenceof theearningsof thosein hisoccupation
performingsimilarwork atthetoplevelof thefield.4Thepetitionermustpresentevidenceof objective
earningsdata showing that he has earneda "high salary" or "significantly high remuneration"in
comparisonwith thoseperformingsimilar work during the sametime period. SeeMatter of Price,
20I&N Dec.953,954(Assoc.Comm'r 1994)(consideringprofessionalgolfer's earningsversusother
PGATourgolfers);seealsoGrimsonv.INS,934F. Supp.965,968(N.D.Ill. 1996)(consideringNHL
enforcer'ssalaryversusotherNHL enforcers);Muni v.INS,891F. Supp.440,444-45(N. D. Ill. 1995)
(comparingsalaryof NHL defensiveplayerto salaryof otherNHL defensemen).
The petitionerprovidesa a pagefrom the Online WageLibrary -
Association,andevidencefrom Thedirectordeterminedthat
thepetitionerfailedtomeettherequirementsof thiscriterion.
The letter from .....
Theletteroffersthepetitionerthepositionasa
educatorin returnfor a First,therecordcontainsno evidencethatthepetitionerhad
alreadycommandedthis salary as of the date of filing as required under the plain languageof the
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). An offer of future salary or remunerationcannot serveas
qualifyingevidenceunderthiscriterion.
4 While the AAO acknowledgesthat a district court's decisionis not binding precedent,we note that in
MatterofRacine,1995WL 153319at *4 (N.D.Ill. Feb.16,1995),thecourtstated,"[T]he plainreadingof the
statutesuggeststhattheappropriatefield of comparisonis notacomparisonof Racine'sability with thatof all the
hockeyplayersat all levels of play; but rather,Racine'sability as a professionalhockeyplayerwithin the
NHL. This interpretationis consistentwith . . . the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2),and the
discussionsetforthin thepreambleat56Fed.Reg.60898-99."
Page19
Second,theFLCWageSearchResultsrelateto thebroadcategoryof coachesandscoutsanddoesnot
directlyrelateto thepetitioner'sfield or thepositionof professionalsnowsportsmastereducatorfor a
ski resort. Additionally,the FLC Wagedatais limitedto coachesandscoutsin the northcentral
Coloradononmetropolitanarearatherthan "in relationto othersin the field" as the regulationat
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ix)plainly requires. The plain languageof this regulatorycriterionrequires
evidenceof "a highsalaryor othersignificantlyhighremunerationfor services,in relationto othersin
thefield." (Emphasisadded.)Merelyearningaboveaveragewagesdoesnot constitutea "high salary"
or "significantlyhigh remuneration."The petitionerdid not documentwhat thehigh endsalariesare
nationallyin his occupation. Thus,the recordis void of objectiveearningsdatashowingthat the
petitionerhasearneda "high salary"or "significantly high remuneration"in comparisonwith those
performingsimilarwork duringthesametimeperiod.SeeMatterofPrice, 20I&N Dec.at954. In the
presentcase,theevidencesubmittedby thepetitionerdoesnot establishthathe hasreceiveda high
salaryor othersignificantlyhighremunerationfor servicesin relationto othersin thefield.
Consequently,thepetitionerhasnot submittedevidencethatmeetstheplain languagerequirementsof
thiscriterion.
D. Summary
Thepetitionerhasfailedtosatisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.
III. CONCLUSION
The documentationsubmittedin supportof a claim of extraordinaryability mustclearly demonstrate
thatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandis oneof thesmallpercentage
whohasrisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.
Had the petitioner submittedthe requisiteevidenceunder at least three evidentiarycategories,in
accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determinationthat
considersall of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a
"levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento the
verytop of the[ir] field of endeavor"and(2) "that thealienhassustainednationalor international
acclaimand that his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise." 8C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(2)and(3); seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.While theAAO concludesthatthe
evidenceis notindicativeof a levelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmallpercentageat theverytopof
thefield or sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO neednotexplainthatconclusionin a
final meritsdetermination.5 Rather,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailed to satisfythe
antecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id. at1122.
Thepetitionerhasnotestablishedeligibilitypursuanttosection203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthepetition
maynotbeapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of the
Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Here,thepetitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden. Accordingly,theappealwill
bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.
5TheAAO maintainsde novoreviewof all questionsof factandlaw. SeeSoltanev.DOJ, 381 F.3d143,145
(3dCir. 2004). In any future proceeding,the AAO maintainsthe jurisdiction to conduct a final merits
determinationastheoffice thatmadethelastdecisionin thismatter.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealsosection
103(a)(1)of theAct; section204(b)of theAct; DHS DelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch 1, 2003);8
C.F.R.§ 2.1 (2003);8 C.F.R.§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003);Matterof Aurelio,19I&N Dec.458,460(BIA 1987)
(holdingthatlegacyINS,nowUSCIS,is thesoleauthoritywith thejurisdictionto decidevisapetitions).