dismissed EB-1A Case: Branding And Design

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 1 6 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Jt.�::!ttative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, a branding and design agency, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an "alien of 
extraordinary ability" in the arts, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 11 53(b)(l)(A), which makes visas available to aliens who can demonstrate 
their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. The director determined that the 
beneficiary had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), 
which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the 
ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and copies of previously submitted documents. The petitioner 
asserts that the beneficiary meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v), 
(vii), and (viii). 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the petitioner has not established the beneficiary' s 
eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted 
qualifying evidence for the beneficiary of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that the beneficiary satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set 
forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not demonst rated 
that the beneficiary is one of the small percentage who is at the very top in the field of endeavor, and 
that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, 
we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 723 101 51 Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 199 1). 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. I d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the beneficiary's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the beneficiary's achievements 
in the field through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient 
qualifying evidence that the beneficiary meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (91h Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (91h Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that users examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established the beneficiary's eligibility for this 
criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a July 22, 2014 letter from Publisher and Creative 
Director, stating that the [the beneficiaryl received a Gold award in the "Real Estate" 
category of the "Advertising Annual competition. The petitioner also submitted 
internet screenshots of the beneficiary's project from the online archives' "Advertising 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the 
petitioner asserts the beneficiary meets or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative 
evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
Annual " awards section ? In addition, the petitioner submitted information about the 
award program that states: 
• will award Platinum and Gold to the top 100 international entries. 
• Entrants from the Americas, Asia and Europe also will be awarded with Silver in the 
top 100 of each of these regions. 
• Those who do not receive Platinum, Gold or Silver awards may qualify for a Merit 
award. 
• Therefore, up to 1,000 Platinum, Gold, Silver and Merit awards will be honored and 
archived on the website annually. 
The submitted information shows that the number of awards annually conferred by the 
competition, "up to 1,000 Platinum, Gold, Silver and Merit awards," is substantial. The petitioner 
also submitted a "Frequently Asked Questions" document from the , _ website stating that 
"winners can order certificates for $25 each" and that trophies "are available to all winners for $250 
each." The document further states that magazine "halted production" in 2005 and is no 
longer in circulation. The submitted documentation does not indicate how many entries competed in 
the "Advertising Annual ' "Real Estate" category in which the beneficiary received a Gold 
award. Regardless, there is no documentary evidence showing that the beneficiary's Gold award in the 
Real Estate category is recognized beyond the competition organizer and at a level commensurate with 
a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate showing that the beneficiary received a "Bronze" 
in the "Computer-Generated Character" category of the 
"graphics" discipline. In addition, the petitioner submitted information about the competition from 
the website stating that "participants can receive a Gold, Silver or Bronze certificate" and that 
each category "can have multiple gold, silver and bronze" winners. The submitted information 
further states that only "[ o ]ne entry in each discipline, architectural, interior, product, graphic and 
fashion will receive the sought-after trophy at the biannual awards ceremony." The submitted 
documentation reflects that the confers Gold, Silver, and Bronze awards in numerous categories 
in the architectural, interior, product, graphic, and fashion disciplines ? In addition to the 
"Computer-Generated Character" category under which the beneficiary received his award, the 
"graphic" discipline alone includes 26 other award categories. Accordingly, the number of awards 
conferred by the program is substantial. Receiving an award that is conferred upon a substantial 
number and percentage of entries is not, without more, indicative of national or international 
2 The online archives include additional awards sections for ' 
proceeding. 
See 
, accessed on February 4, 2015, copy incorporated into the record of 
3 For example, there are nine award categories in the architectural design discipline, eight categories in the 
interior design discipline, 42 cajegories in the product design discipline, 17 categories in the fashion design 
discipline, and 27 categories in the graphic design discipline. See http:/; 
b..1:..mJL � http:/ and 
http:, accessed on March 5, 2015, copies incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
recognition for excellence in the field of endeavor or performing at the top of one's field. With regard 
to the beneficiary's Bronze award in the "Computer-Generated Character" category, there is 
no documentary evidence reflecting the number of entrants in that category or the percentage of 
entrants who received awards. 
The petitioner also submitted online information about the biannual "Design Awards Gala 
Ceremony" specifically "[h]onoring the designers of the year." These top awards include only 
"Architect of the Year," "Interior Design of the Year," "Product Design of the Year," "Fashion 
Design of the Year," "Graphic Design of the Year," and "Discover of the Year." The submitted 
information further states: "Please note: Gold, Silver, Bronze, and Honorable mention winners will 
not receive an [sic] awards this evening. Their work will be screened for the audience, but only the 
list above will be called on stage to receive their trophy." [Emphasis in original] There is no 
documentary evidence showing that the beneficiary's "Bronze" award in the "Computer-Generated 
Character" category is recognized beyond the program at a level commensurate with a nationally 
or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a certificate from the 
Awards stating that Magazine by '' _ _ ) was a Silver 
Winner" in the "Best Redesign, Consumer" award category. The plain language of this 
regulatory criterion, however, requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt" of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards. In this instance, the Silver award was presented to 
and not the beneficiary. There is no evidence demonstra ting the 
beneficiary's receipt of the award. In addition, the petitioner submitted the 
Awards "Rules of Entry" which state that the competition is open to all magazines and that the 
' recognize excellence in magazine design."4 The number of Awards 
conferred annually is substantial.5 The submitted documentation does not indicate how many entries 
competed in the A wards "Best Redesign, Consumer" category in which " 
' received a Silver award. Regardless, there is no documentary evidence 
showing that the Silver award in the "Best Redesign, Consumer" category is recognized beyond the 
competition organizer and at a level commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized 
award for excellence in the field. 
With regard to the beneficiary's award, his award, and the 
award, the petitioner did not submit evidence demonstrating the national or 
international recognition of the awards. The information submitted from the competition organizers' 
websites is not sufficient to demonstrate the national or international recognition of the awards. 
USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. Cf Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, 
aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9) (concluding that USCIS did not have to rely on self-serving 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). The plain language 
4 The su bmi tted information further states that the competition organizer, Magazine, charges a $250 fee 
for the first entry and $195 fee for each additional entry. 
5 For example, according to the" Award Winners" listing, there were more than 160 award 
recip ients in "magazine design" alone. See � 
:, accessed on February 4, 2015, copy incorporated 
into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the beneficiary's awards be 
nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish every element of this criterion. In this case, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating 
that the aforementioned awards were recognized beyond the presenting organizations at a level 
commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this regulatory 
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 necesswy 
translation. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established the beneficiary's eligibility for this 
criterion. 
The petitioner submitted an October 24, article about the beneficiary in the ' 
, but the author of the material was not identified as 
required by this regulatory criterion. In addition, the petitioner submitted information from 
www a website of , stating that is "Israel's 
most widely-read daily newspaper." The petitioner also submitted two articles from 
www (dated January 27, and July 28, � stating that is 
"Israel's most widely-read paper" and "Israel's largest paper, with an exposure of 34.3%." A lthou gh 
the petitioner submitted readership information for , the petitioner did not 
provide circulation statistics for the 6 
There is no documentary evidence showing that the 
is a form of major media in the United States or Israel. Accordingly, the petitioner 
has not established that the beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, schol arly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established the beneficiary's eligibility for this 
criterion. The plain language of this criterion requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field." 
Here, the evidence must rise to the level of original artistic contributions "of major significance in 
the field." 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 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted 
in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing the beneficiary's work as an art director and 
designer for various clients' advertising and marketing campaigns. The director found that the 
6 The cover of the includes an advertisement for a 
located in New Jersey. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
submitted evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that the beneficiary has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director erred by disregarding the letters submitted by 
and The petitioner states that their letters "describe in detail precisely how and 
why [the benefici ary' s] contributions were 'original' and why they were of 'major' significan ce." 
cofounder of _ , , and founder and chief executive 
officer (CEO) of 1, states that the beneficiary provided 
web design, promotional, and marketing services for his two companies. For example, Mr. 
mentions that the beneficiary "created an updated branding campaign and a newly designed website 
for ' The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires, however, that 
the beneficia ry' s contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than limited to the 
clients for which he has provided design services. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 
(upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate 
her impact in the field as a whole). 
Regarding the originality of the beneficiary' s work, Mr. states: 
I can attest to the fact that [the beneficiary] has made an original contribution to his field by 
revolutionizing real estate marketing and design strategies through the use of new web-based 
technologies and incorporating them with visually captivating designs .... Simply put, [the 
beneficiary's] approach to real estate marketing and design strategies was an original 
contribution to his field because it pushed the boundaries and created a new method for 
designers to address and solve real estate marketing challenges. 
While we acknowledge the originality of the beneficiary's marketing and design work for 
the submitted evidence does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's websites and web 
marketing campaigns rise to the level of artistic contributions of major significance in the field. 
Mr. continues: 
[The beneficia ry's ] original contributions to his field are of major significance because many 
design and marketing professionals have followed in his footsteps by creating engaging, 
interactive, and visually pleasing websites and web marketing campaigns for the real estate 
industry based on sound market research and strategy. The real estate websites and web 
marketing campaigns created by [the beneficiary] have been imitated by countless designers 
and real estate agencies. Indeed, [the beneficiary's] ideas are a winning recipe that has been 
proven to work. I can certainly say that I owe a great deal of my financial and professional 
success to his innovative design methods and ideas. 
Mr. asserts that "many design and marketing professionals have followed in [the 
beneficiar y's ] footsteps," but does not identify them or provide specific examples of how the 
beneficiar y's original work has influenced the way websites are designed, has affected how web 
marketing campaigns are conducted, or has otherwise been indicative of artistic contributions of 
major significance in the field. USCIS need not rely on unsubstantiated claims. See 1756, Inc. v. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
US. Att'y Gen., 74 5 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications); see also Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35 
(upholding USCIS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in 
the field). 
� 
CEO of 
� 
, states that the beneficiary and his design team at 
needs." Mr. 
have become his company's "one-stop shop [] for marketing and advertising 
further states: 
[The beneficia ry' s] innovation was to apply his expertise in creating compelling, functional, 
and inviting design to solve marketing strategies in the food and beverage industry. His re­
design of the website was one of the first restaurant e-commerce sites in the 
world to apply this innovative approach. His innovative solution makes it simpler and more 
appealing to order online, which results in a significant increase in sales. 
With regard to the beneficiary's redesign of the website, again, the plain language of 
this regulatory criterion requires that the beneficiary 's contributions be "of major significance in the 
field" rather than limited to the clients for whom he has provided web design, marketing, and 
advertising services. While Mr. comments demonstrate the originality of the beneficiary's 
work for , they do not demonstrate that the beneficiary's e-commerce design approach 
rises to the level of an original artistic contribution of major significance in the field. 
Mr. continues: 
[The beneficiary's] original contribution to the field is of major significance because he has 
transformed the way design professionals develop e-commerce strategy for the food and 
beverage industry. His original contribution has set the tone for what clients in the industry 
expect because they have realized the profitability of using such a novel design solution to 
address their marketing challenges. As a result, more and more design and marketing 
professionals are following [the beneficiary' s] lead by utilizing the method that he created. 
This is but one example of how [the beneficiary' s] constant innovation on behalf of his 
clients are [sic] game-changing in the field of design and vitally important to the success of 
multiple industries in the US. 
Mr. asserts that the beneficiary has "transformed the way design professionals develop e­
commerce strategy for the food and beverage industry" and that "more and more design and 
marketing professionals are following [the beneficiary's] lead by utilizing the method." Mr. 
however, does not identify the design and marketing professionals in the industry who are utilizing 
the beneficiar y's specific method. Again, USCIS need not rely on unsubstantiated claims. See 1756, 
745 F. Supp. at 15 ; see also Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35. There is no documentary evidence 
showing that the beneficiary 's e-comrnerce design solution has affected the design field or the food 
and beverage industry in a major way, or that his work otherwise constitutes original contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
The petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific assertions 
above. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. at 17. In addition, 
uncorroborated assertions are insufficient. See Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35; Matter of Caron 
Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion, use 
as advisory opinions statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought 
and "is not required to accept or may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way 
questionable"). The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the beneficiary's eligibility. Id. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Without additional, 
specific evidence showing that the beneficiary's work has been unusually influential, substantially 
impacted the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, 
the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established the beneficiary's eligibility for this 
criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires "[ e ]vidence of 
the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcase s." A review of the 
record of proceeding, however, reflects that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence establishing that the beneficiary meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). For example, the petitioner submitted evidence showing that the beneficiary's 
work appeared in the and the . Accordingly, the 
petitioner has established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established the beneficiary's eligibility for this 
criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[ e ]vidence 
that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have 
a distinguished reputation." A review of the record of proceeding, however, reflects that the 
petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing that the beneficiary meets the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). For example, the petitioner 
submitted documentary evidence showing that the beneficiary performed in a critical role as an art 
director and marketing consultant for and the In addition, the 
petitioner submitted published material demonstrating that these organizations have a distinguished 
reputation. Accordingly, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that the beneficiary satisfies three of the ten regulatory 
criteria. 
C. Prior 0-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Status 
The record reflects that the beneficiary in this matter is also the beneficiary of an approved 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition for an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts. Although the words 
"extraordinary ability" are used in the Act for classification of artists under both the nonimmigrant 0-1 
and the first preference employment-based immigrant categories, the statute and regulations define the 
term differently for each classification. Section 1 01 (a)( 46) of the Act states, "The term 'extraordinary 
ability' means, for purposes of section 101(a)(15)(0)(i), in the case of the arts, distinction." The 0-1 
regulation reiterates that "[ e ]xtraordinary ability in the field of arts means distinction." 8 C.F . R. 
, § 214.2( o )(3)(ii). "Distinction" is a different standard than that required for the immigrant 
classification, which defines extraordinary ability as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The evidentiary criteria for these two classifications also differ in several respects, for 
example, nominations for awards or prizes are acceptable evidence of 0-1 eligibility, 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iv)(A), but the immigrant classification requires actual receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized awards or prizes. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Given the clear statutory and 
regulatory distinction between these two classifications, the beneficiary's receipt of 0-1 nonimmigrant 
classification is not evidence of his eligibility for immigrant classification as an alien with extraordinary 
ability. Further, approval of a nonimmigrant visa does not mandate the approval of a similar immigrant 
visa. Each petition must be decided on a case-by-case basis upon review of the evidence of record. 
Many 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. , 724 F. Supp. at 1103. See also Texas 
A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not 
preclude users from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of the 
alien's qualifications). 
We are 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). USCIS is not required to treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. See Sussex Eng'g Ltd v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 
(6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, our 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 has approved a nonimmigrant petition on 
behalf of the alien, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. 
Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, *1, *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 
2000), aff'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 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 his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence for the beneficiary 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 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, 59 6 F.3d at 1119-20. As 
the petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting evidence for the beneficiary that satisfied the initial 
evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) and (4). Kazarian, 59 6 F.3d at 1122. 
Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a finding that the petitioner has not 
demonstrated the beneficiary' s level of expertise required for the classification sought.7 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: . The appeal is dismissed. 
7 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 
381 P.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final 
merits determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see 
also INA §§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.P.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).