dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwmmted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 06 016 50539 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
e- 
4~obert . Wiemann, Chief 
' Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner, a commercial printing company, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in business. The director determined the petitioner had 
not established that the beneficiary has earned the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that the beneficiary meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) hority 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 whch 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seelung immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 1991). As used in 
this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The 
specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the 
petitioner must show that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on October 13, 2005, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as an "executive manager and business management consultant." Since 2002, the beneficiary has worked for 
Impressions, Inc. as a business management consultant and has also served as the company's president. 
Page 3 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that in 1969 the beneficiary earned a Bachelor of Education 
degree and a Bachelor of Science degree from Memorial University of Newfoundland. In 1972, the 
beneficiary earned a Master of Science degree (Planning) from the University of British Columbia. 
According to his resume, between 1972 and 1984, the beneficiary worked as Director of City Planning in St. 
John's, Canada; as a Federal Negotiator and Federal Chairman for the Department of Regional Economic 
Expansion (DREE), Canada; as Executive Director of the Gander Development Corporation (managing 
development issues for the Town of Gander and the Gander International Airport), Canada; and as a Branch 
Director with Federal Fisheries in Canada. From 1982 through 1992, the beneficiary was Chief Executive 
Officer (CEO) and President of Orrne's Bakery, Inc., in Canada. Since that time, the beneficiary has served 
as President of Yorkisle Capital Corporation in Canada from 1991 through 1999, as a Management 
Consultant and Planner for the Arizona State Asset Management Division in 1999, as a Senior Management 
Consultant with George S. May International Company in California in 2000, as a Senior Management 
Consultant with International Profit Associates fiom 2000 through 2003, and first as a Business Management 
Consultant and later as President for the petitioner since 2002. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a September 10, 2006 letter from 
 , CEO and Chairman, 
Impressions, Inc., stating: 
The decision letter writer seemed to insinuate that maybe [the beneficiary] did not have these work 
experiences, which both [the beneficiary] and I felt was an offensive attack. I personally felt that the 
decision letter writer basically did not believe me nor [the beneficiary's] credentials and as an 
American I found it appalling and offensive . . . . 
The petitioner also submits a September 4, 2006 letter from the beneficiary stating: 
I concur that the decision letter has an overall undesirable tone that seems negative . . . . 
 [Plage 5 
paragraph 1, sentence 4, states: "the record contains little documentary evidence verifying these 
claimed positions. While the positions are listed on the beneficiary's resume, there is no evidence in 
the file fiom the government employers discussing the beneficiary's duties or indicating that he 
judged the work of others." The use of the word claimed positions is as if the writer does not believe 
my resume. Page 6, paragraph 3, sentence 7, the decision writer again uses the word claimed twice 
where it states: "The petitioner also claims the beneficiary's claimed federal employment with the 
Canadian government ." 
Nowhere in the director's decision is there any statement indicating that the information provided in the 
beneficiary's resume is false or not credible. Nevertheless, we agree with the director that the information in 
the resume prepared by the beneficiary is not sufficient evidence of his qualiflmg experience or achevements. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(g) states, in pertinent part: "Evidence relating to qualifying experience or 
training shall be in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) or trainer(s) and shall include the 
name, address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien or of the 
training received." In the examples cited by the beneficiary, the director's decision was not questioning the 
credibility of his credentials, but simply noting the absence of objective evidence as required by the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $8 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (viii). A petition must be filed with the initial evidence 
required by regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The non-existence or other unavailability of required evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligbility. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(2). The director's finding that the information in 
beneficiary's resume did not constitute qualifying evidence of the specific achievements required by the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) is consistent with CIS'S regulations and the statute's requirement 
for "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of 
the Act. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of 
which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes 
or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
In addressing the evidence for this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
In response to the Service's request, the petitioner references an "international competition" for the 
position of "Director, Asset Management and Master Planning as a Management Consultant and 
Planner to start up a new division for the State of Arizona." The petitioner submitted a statement 
from the Anzona State Land Department, dated May 1 1, 1999 and apparently written in conjunction 
with a petition to accord the beneficiary TN nonimmigrant status, which indicates that the department 
advertised the position for several months and selected the beneficiary for the position from the final 
qualified candidates. This is neither a national or international award or prize. Rather, this was a job 
offer for a temporary position. It cannot be concluded that everyone who is selected for a position 
over other candidates has won an [sic] prize or award, or has achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim. Therefore, the record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
We concur with the director's findings. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a September 10, 2006 letter from 
m 
tating that the beneficiary's 
selection for the Canadian Federal Government's "Executive Interc ange Program ' in 1978 is "a nationa 
in executive management." The petitioner also submits an August 8, 2006 letter from mh 
Manager, Interchange Canada Program, Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of 
Canada, stating: 
Per your request, based upon the documents I have, I can confirm the following: 
[The beneficiary] commenced employment with the Department of Regional Economic 
Expansion (DREE) on September 23, 1974 as an Implementation Officer (C02). 
[The beneficiary] was promoted to a Senior Implementation Officer (C03) on November 
0 1, 1976 while with DREE. 
[The beneficiary] went on Special Assignment for DREE in New Brunswick in 1977- 
1978. 
[The beneficiary] went on Executive Interchange to the Gander Development 
Corporation in 1978 - 1979 
[The beneficiary] was promoted to AIDirector, Atlantic Fisheries Programs Branch with 
Federal Fisheries on June 25, 1979, which was an SX-01 executive position. Regarding 
your question as to the level of this position in a federal departmental organization, a 
Director position in the federal government is normally the fourth highest position below 
the Deputy Minister, Asst. Deputy Minister and Director General positions. 
You specifically requested information on the Executive Interchange Program that [the beneficiary] 
participated on during 1978 - 1979. The Executive Interchange Program was established in 1971 
through an initiative announced by former Prime Minister of Canada for 
executive-level employees. It provided senior executives with up to a two-year assignment in another 
sector. Those who were nominated for the Executive Interchange Program were considered to be the 
top of the class candidates and therefore very few executives were selected each year. Any candidate 
selected for Executive Interchange from 1971 to the mid 1980s could only be approved at the highest 
federal government bureaucratic level, which is Deputy Minister. To enter the Executive Interchange 
program contractual agreements between the Federal Government and the engaging outside 
organization were prepared which set out the terms and conditions each party needed to fulfill. 
Today, the program continues on a broader scale and is known internationally as the Interchange 
Canada Program. 
There are no available statistics for 1978 when [the beneficiary] was on Executive Interchange but 
between 1971 and 1982, there were only 35 executive-level federal employees selected for 
assignment to a Canadian Crown Corporation. 
The petitioner also submits labor statistics showing the total number of federal employees worlung in Canada 
each year from 2001 through 2005. Amelia Young states that these statistics show that "in 2001 there were 
440,462 employees. Assuming 400,000 federal employees in 1978 and assuming only 3 executive-level 
employees were chosen for Federal Executive Interchange, this would put [the beneficiary] in the top 3/400,000 = 
.0000075% of all eligible federal employees." The record, however, includes no official statistics for 1978, nor 
information regarding the number of managers eligible for nomination to the program at that time. Nevertheless, 
we do not find that eligibility for "a two-year assignment in another sector" of the federal government is 
tantamount to the beneficiary's receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence. Further, there is no evidence showing that being selected for this program commanded a 
significant level of recognition outside of the participating organizational components. The plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i), however, specifically requires that the awards or prizes be nationally or 
Page 6 
internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is the petitioner's burden to establish every element of a 
given criterion. 
The petitioner also submits an August 9, 2006 letter from ho states that he "was employed with 
the Federal Government of Canada for 30 years and retired in August 2004" and that his "first job was with the 
DREE, the same Department that [the beneficiary] joined in September 1974." Vincent Pike mher states: 
I recall that around 1977 - 1978[,], who was . . . Assistant Deputy Minister in 
Moncton, NB, asked [the beneficiary] to go on a special assignment in Moncton, New Brunswick to 
renegotiate a previous $100 million program for the three maritime provinces. . . . To negotiate a critical 
multi million dollar agreement with three Provincial Governments and their senior executive staff was a 
very big assignment. It was an honor that one of our professional colleagues in our office was requested 
to undertake such a prestige [sic] assignment. 
Amelia Young states that the letter from 
 "shows that the Special Assignment qualifies for a lesser 
National Award and meets this criterion." The task to whch the beneficiary was assigned by his superior, 
however, is not tantamount to the beneficiary's receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence. 
The petitioner also submits local newspaper articles reflecting that the beneficiary received various student 
honors during his high school years. For example, the beneficiary was identified as a first runner up in an 
essay contest sponsored by the Great Falls Branch of the Canadian Legion and as a winner in another essay 
contest sponsored by the local Kinsmen Service Organization. The beneficiary also received a Strathcona 
Trust Trophy in 1962 for outstanding cadet in the Great Falls Academy (New Brunswick) Central High 
School Cadet Corps and was selected to attend the Summer Army Camp at Banff. At this national summer 
cadet camp, the beneficiary was judged "best cadet . . . in D Company." The September 4, 2006 letter from 
the beneficiary states that he "was one of just four Best Cadets for all of Canada, a true National Award at the 
age of 17." In addition, the beneficiary was awarded a "Master Cadet Star" by the Company Commander of 
the Great Falls Academy Army Cadet Corps, "the highest achievement that a cadet can attain." The record, 
however, does not establish that these honors were for excellent achievement in the beneficiary's field of 
endeavor, business management, or that they were consistent with sustained national acclaim at the very top 
of the beneficiary's field. 
The petitioner also submits a local newspaper article stating: "[The beneficiary] received two fellowships 
while at U.B.C. [University of British Columbia] in 1970-1971. He was awarded the Richard King Mellon 
Fellowship and in 197 1-1 972, the Central Mortgage and Housing Fellowship." The September 4, 2006 letter 
from the beneficiary states that these fellowships "are prestigious awards" and that the Central Mortgage and 
Housing Fellowship "is a National Fellowship that is only offered to a very few select graduate students after 
a National Examination Application process." We do not find that selection for these educational fellowships 
constitutes the beneficiary's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. The preceding fellowships were intended to provide funding for students 
seelung to pursue their graduate studies rather than to recognize excellence among those already active in the 
business management field. 
 University study is not a field of endeavor, but rather training for future 
employment in a field of endeavor. Receiving funding for one's education, while an academic honor, is not 
Page 7 
an indication that an individual has reached the "very top of the field of endeavor." 
 See 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(2). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets 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. 
In addressing the evidence for this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The record establishes that the beneficiary is a member of the Institute of Management Consultants 
USA (IMC USA), the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP), the Atlantic Planners Institute (API), and 
the American Society of Planning Officials (ASPO). The initial submission contained no evidence 
regarding the criteria for membership into any of these organizations. The Service requested this 
information. While the petitioner submitted additional information regarding IMC USA and CIP, the 
petitioner did not address or provide any evidence regarding API or ASPO. Without such 
information, the record cannot establish that membership in API or ASPO meets this criterion. 
The record indicates that a Professional Member of IMC USA must be a practicing management 
consultant or potential management consultant who agrees to subscribe to the IMC USA Code of 
Ethics and meets at least one of the following criteria: minimum of one year experience as a 
management consultant; at least five years experience in management; at least five years experience 
in a technical or professional specialty; a Master's Degree in Business or a related field; or be 
currently working as a consultant within an IMC Accredited Practice. From this, it is clear that IMC 
USA does not require outstanding achievements as judged by nationally or internationally recognized 
experts in the field. 
The record indicates that the CIP has membership qualifications relating to people who have a 
recognized degree, a related degree, an unrelated degree, or who are members of the profession in 
other countries. As the beneficiary has a recognized degree, the Service will only discuss those 
qualifications. Specifically, membership may be granted to those who have a recognized degree in 
planning, who have applied for and been elected as a Provisional member, who have subsequently 
completed a minimum of two years of responsible professional planning experience which has been 
recorded in a log book, and who has successfully completed an oral examination. Provisional 
membership may be granted based on a degree alone. This clearly indicates that CIP does not 
required outstanding achievements as considered by regulations. 
Therefore, the record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary is a member of an association which 
requires outstanding achievements or that the beneficiary was judged by national or international 
experts in consideration of his membership in IMC USA, CIP, API, and ASPO. Thus, the record 
does not demonstrate that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
We concur with the director's findings. 
Page 8 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a May 30, 2006 letter from 
 Manager, Member Services and 
Administration, CIP, stating that the beneficiary is a "certified member" of the CIP and that the organization 
has "over 6800 members . . . of which 3600 Members are certified MCIP's." 
In his September 4, 2006 letter, the beneficiary notes that membership requirements for the API, a regional 
affiliate of the CIP, were provided as they fall under the national charter of the CIP. Nevertheless, based on a 
reading of the CIP's bylaws contained in the record, we do not find that the API or the CIP require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. Earning a requisite 
degree, completing two years of professional experience, and successfully passing an oral examination to the 
satisfaction of a regional affiliate to obtain "certified" membership in the CIP simply do not rise to the level 
of "outstanding achievements" as required by the regulation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in profesional 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. 
Although the petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets ths criterion, the appellate submission included 
several local newspaper articles fkom the early 1960s, one from 1972, and two fkom 1996, that mention the 
beneficiary. There is no evidence showing that the newspapers in which these articles were published qualify as 
bbprofessional or major trade publications or other major media." Further, the authors of the articles from the early 
1960s and 1972 were not identified as required by this criterion. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedjeld of spec2fication for which classification is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the beneficiary's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, 
reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
In addressing the evidence for this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The petitioner . . . states that "it is apparent that as a Federal Director, as a Federal Chairman, as an 
Executive Director and in such other senior management positions, it is obvious that at such executive 
positions that [the beneficiary] hired, fired and judged the work of others." However, it is noted that 
Page 9 
the record contains little documentary evidence verifying these claimed positions. While the positions 
are listed on the beneficiary's resume, there is no evidence in the file from the government employers 
discussing the beneficiary's duties or indicating that he judged the work of others in the field. The 
record contains some reports written by the beneficiary as a consultant to the government, but nothing 
to show that he judged the work of others. The petitioner did submit meeting minutes downloaded 
from a website which list the beneficiary as "Director," but there is again nothing to demonstrate that 
the beneficiary was actively judging the work of others. 
The petitioner also refers to the fact that "for the past 3 years here in this company [the beneficiary] 
has been overseeing every manager's work." In an occupation where 'judging" the work of others is 
an inherent duty of the occupation, such as management occupations with subordinate employees, 
simply performing one's job related duties demonstrates competency, and is not evidence of national 
or international acclaim. 
We concur with the director's findings. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits the beneficiary's June 30, 1977 "Performance Review and Evaluation Report" 
listing his primary responsibilities as a Senior Implementation Officer for the DREE. According to the 
Performance Review and Evaluation Report, the beneficiary's responsibilities were performed "[ulnder the 
general direction of the Manager, Program Implementation" and there is no indication that he pmcipated either 
individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others. 
The petitioner also submits a March 31, 1979 letter from , President, Gander Development 
Corporation, describing actions taken by the beneficiary as Executive Director and stating that he "has met the 
objectives of the Board." Nothing in the March 3 1, 1979 letter indicates that he participated either individually or 
on a panel, as a judge of the work of others. 
The record also includes a May 11, 1999 from , State Land Commissioner, Anzona State Land 
Department, describing a job offer to the beneficiary and two accompanying position descriptions. 
 This 
documentation, which was issued prior to the beneficiary's employment for the department, does not contain 
information establishing that he participated either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others. 
An October 3, 2002 letter from 
 President, Battlefield Graphics, Inc. states that the beneficiary's 
consulting services helped the company to implement necessary changes and achieve "positive promised results." 
However, we do not find that that providing management consulting services is tantamount to judging the work 
of others for purposes of this criterion. 
In the preceding instances, there is no evidence showing the names of the individuals judged by the 
beneficiary, their level of expertise, the paperwork documenting his evaluations, or the exact dates of his 
participation. The benefit sought in the present matter, however, is not the type for which documentation is 
typically unavailable and the statute specifically requires "extensive documentation" to establish eligibility. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing this statute 
provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected 
in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for 
C~ Page 10 
lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Further, we agree with the director that the 
beneficiary's performance of job duties inherent to his occupation demonstrates competency rather than sustained 
national or international acclaim. General managerial or consulting responsibilities, such as administering 
programs and projects, directing staff, hiring and firing personnel, or providing business guidance, are not 
tantamount to judging the work of others in the field in a manner consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
Without substantive evidence showing that the beneficiary participated in judging others in his or an allied 
field in a manner indicative of sustained national or international acclaim, we cannot conclude that he meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijkance in the$eld. 
In addressing the evidence for this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
' 
In response to the Service's request, the petitioner . . . references witness letters fiom companies 
which have retained the beneficiary as a management consultant. While it appears that the 
beneficiary made contributions to each of these companies, it is not clear that his contributions were 
original or that such contnbutions affected the field as a whole. There is nothing to indicate that, as a 
management consultant, the beneficiary developed new theories or processes which have been widely 
adopted in the field or otherwise had major significance. While the beneficiary's contnbutions likely 
had some significance for his employers, there is nothing to demonstrate that the contnbutions were 
original or were of major significance to the field at large. Therefore, the record does not demonstrate 
that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
We concur with the director's findings. While the beneficiary is a skilled manager who has clearly earned the 
admiration of his past and present employers, there is no evidence showing that the work attributable to him 
has had a substantial impact beyond his employers such that it can be considered a business-related 
contribution of "major significance in the field." For example, the record does not show that the greater field 
has somehow changed as a result of the beneficiary's business management techniques. With regard to the 
personal recommendation of individuals who have worked with the beneficiary, the source of the 
recommendations is a highly relevant consideration. These letters are not first-hand evidence that the 
beneficiary has achieved recognition for his contnbutions outside of those for whom he has worked consistent 
with the requisite "sustained national or international acclaim." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$eld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
In addressing the evidence for this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
Page 11 
The initial submission contained several internal reports generated by the beneficiary for employers. 
There is nothing to indicate that these reports were published in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. The petitioner was requested to provide additional evidence that 
the beneficiary meets this criterion. The response contains evidence that the beneficiary has one 
publication, bbNewfoundland Bait Service: a cost recovery alternative" (1 980), located in the Library 
and Archives Canada and Memorial University of Newfoundland, and a second publication, "Public 
Attitudes Toward Mobile Homes" (1972), located in an unknown library. There are no copies or 
specific information regarding either publication, and it is not clear if they were scholarly articles or if 
they were published in professional or major trade publication[s] or other major media. It is noted that 
the second listed publication is from the same year the beneficiary received his Master's Degree, and 
may possibly be his thesis, which would not meet this criterion. Without additional information 
regarding these publications, the record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
We concur with the director's findings. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a listing of six investigative reports prepared by the beneficiary in federal 
service and a listing of eight "confidential federal policy papers" prepared by committees on which he served. 
Copies of the listed reports and papers were not submitted. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). In addressing the papers and reports he prepared for the government, the September 4, 2006 
letter from the beneficiary states: "I believe this is equivalent or in higher regard than just having the paper 
read in a trade publication, where anyone can write at any time. I believe this falls under other media and 
meets the criteria [sic]" [emphasis added]. The plain language of this criterion requires the beneficiary's 
work to appear "in professional or major trade publications or other major media" [emphasis added]. The 
record, however, includes no evidence showing that the beneficiary's governmental reports and papers 
appeared in one of the major publications in his field. For example, the petitioner failed to submit circulation 
statistics for the beneficiary's reports and papers. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has per$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In addressing the evidence for this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
In the initial submission, the petitioner claimed all of the beneficiary's prior employment under this 
criterion, including part-time instructor duties with Memorial University of Newfoundland, a position 
with Gander Development Corporation, and third party management consultant duties for Battlefield 
Graphics, Hertel Meats, Ltd., RNR Mechanical Contr[actors], Urban Wood Waste Recycle[r]s, 
Matthews Studio Equipment, the petitioning entity, Tire Management, JAL Construction Inc., 
American Video Systems, Custom Design Countertops, Apache Machine & Mfg., Land & Sea, and 
Yell Concrete. The petitioner also claims the beneficiary's claimed federal employment with the 
Canadian government, but . . . the record contains no specific information or corroborative 
documentation regarding his duties or specific employment. 
On a eal, the etitioner submits the August 8, 2006 letter fro-and the August 9, 2006 letter 
fro -confirming the beneficiary's federal employment and describing his various job assignments. 
Regarding the beneficiary's work for the DREE, there is no evidence showing that his work was more important 
than that of the other Implementation Officers or Senior Implementation Officers who worked for this agency. 
Further, the evidence shows that the preceding positions held by the beneficiary were subordinate to the 
Deputy Minister, Asst. Deputy Minister, Director General, and Director. Regarding the beneficiary's 
Executive Interchange assignment to the Gander Development Corporation, the March 3 1, 1979 letter from 
President of the Gander Development Corporation, stated that it was "too early to comment on the 
success of [the beneficiary's] activities," but that he had "met the objectives of the Board during this past year." 
further stated: "[The beneficiary] came to us at a time when our objectives were fairly well 
established and the need was for an organizer with administrative ability . . . ." From this letter, it appears that the 
President and Board members played a significant and authoritative role in the corporation, but there is nothing in 
the record indicating that the beneficiary's role was of comparable significance. While the beneficiary is credited 
with meeting "the objectives of the Board," the record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary was responsible 
for the organization's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role." In 
regard to the beneficiary's work as AIDirector of the Atlantic Fisheries Programs Branch of Canadian Federal 
Fisheries, there is no evidence showing that the beneficiary's work was more important than that of the other 
ABirectors or other senior managers who worked for Federal Fisheries. Further, the evidence shows that the 
mirector position held by the beneficiary was subordinate to the Deputy Minister, Asst. Deputy Minister, 
and Director General. Finally, there is no evidence showing that the preceding organizations had 
distinguished reputations. 
The director's decision further stated: 
Regarding the beneficiary's management consultant duties with the above listed entities, the 
petitioner submitted a number of statements attesting to the beneficiary's activities as a consultant and 
the satisfaction of the clients. However, none of the letters demonstrate how the beneficiary's role 
was leading or critical to the organization. It appears that the beneficiary was simply contracted as a 
third party consultant to these companies for short periods of time, in one case only two weeks. While 
the beneficiary recommended and implemented changes for the companies, this is the very nature of a 
management consultant position, and it is not clear how an outside party working with a company for 
a limited time could have played a "leading or critical role" as considered by regulations. Further, the 
record contains no evidence to demonstrate that any of these companies have a distinguished 
reputation. 
We concur with the director's findings. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an article printed in Heidelberg News, a "customer magazine" distributed by 
Heidelberg, a company that sells and services printing equipment, to it clients. The arbcle discusses how 
Battlefield Graphics was better able to serve its customers after acquiring a Speedmaster SM 102 printing press 
from Heidelberg. The article notes that Battlefield Graphics' customers "chiefly come from Ontario" and that the 
Page 13 
new printing press helped the company "increase its market share." We do not find that this one article, 
appearing in a Heidelberg marketing publication (a company that is an immediate supplier of Battlefield 
Graphcs), is adequate to demonstrate Battlefield Graphics' distinguished reputation in the industry. Further, we 
note the beneficiary's statement on appeal that his consultant work at Battlefield Graphics lasted "about 9 - 10 
weeks." Further, the record does not demons 
 s responsible for this company's success 
or standing in the same manner as its owners 
 and theiilm who, unlike the beneficiary, control and 
manage their company. We agree with the director's finding that the beneficiary's brief work as a hred 
consultant for Battlefield Graphcs was not tantamount to a "leading or critical role" for the company. 
In addressing the beneficiary's role for Impressions, Inc., the director's decision stated: 
The record does contain documentation that the beneficiary has played an important role with the 
petitioning entity and has helped keep the company from bankruptcy. However, the record contains 
no documentation demonstrating that the petitioning entity has a distinguished reputation. 
The statements from Elkhart Community Bank and MFB Bank again state that the beneficiary has 
helped turn around the profits of the company, and that the company's loans with Elkhart are 
contingent on the beneficiary's continued management role. While this again suggests that the 
beneficiary's role within the petitioning entity is leading or critical, it does not demonstrate that the 
petitioning organization holds a distinguished reputation. The petitioner contends that the customer 
list provided shows that the company has a distinguished reputation based on the reputation of several 
of the customers, such as Indiana University, Notre Dame, or Owens Coming. However, this list was 
internally produced and was not accompanied by any corroborative evidence that these entities are 
actually customers of the petitioner. In fact, the record lacks any documentary evidence establishing 
the reputation of the petitioning employer. As such, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that 
the beneficiary has played a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished 
reputation. 
On appeal, the petitioner re-submits Impressions, Inc.'s customer list as certified by the company's accountant, 
various invoices confirming the company's customer relationshps, and samples of material printed by the 
company. While the preceding documentation is sufficient to show that Impressions, Inc. has done business with 
various companies and educational institutions, it is not sufficient to show that the company enjoys a 
distinguished reputation in its industry. The petitioner also submits examples of several award certificates 
presented to Impressions, Inc. for quality of materials it printed for its customers, but the significance and 
magnitude of the these awards in relation to the company's general reputation in its industry have not been 
established. 
Regarding the beneficiary's role for the Anzona State Land Department, the May 11, 1999 fiom - 
states: 
 "In this position, [the beneficiad would work directly under my supervision as a Management 
Consultant, to organize and start up a new division of 'Asset Management & Master Planning" as director. The 
position is uncovered, thus is temporary and is thus offered for one year at a salary of $61,943 annually . . . ." 
The record, however, does not demonstrate that the beneficiary, in hs "temporary" position for the state, was 
Page 14 
responsible for the department's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or 
critical role." Further, there is no evidence showing that the beneficiary's division had a distinguished reputation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets 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. 
In addressing the evidence for this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The petitioner initially claimed this criterion, citing the beneficiary's employment within the 
petitioning entity. The evidence included a job offer letter citing a base salary of $2,600.00 per week 
($135,200.00 per year); an incentive bonus commission at 2.5% of sales in excess of $4.3 million, 
benefits including pension, vacation, and medical for an estimated $23,000.00 per year; and travel 
expenses from the beneficiary's residence in Surprise, Arizona to the petitioner's place of business in 
Elkhart, Indiana along with accommodations and per diem estimated at $50,000.00 per year. This 
indicates an estimated $208,200.00 salary per year plus bonuses. However, the record lacked any 
documentation regarding the salaries of others in the field of business management. 
The Service's correspondence requested the petitioner to submit clear documentation regarding the 
nationwide salaries of others in the field and to submit documentation that the beneficiary's own 
salary is significantly high. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a statement from the company's accountant along with a 2003- 
2004 survey. The statement indicates that, for calendar year 2004, the beneficiary received total pay 
and benefits in the amount of $266,461 32. The only evidence regarding the salaries of others in the 
field was a copy of two pages of a 200+ page survey conducted by the Graphic Arts Technical 
Foundation and the hnting Industries of America regarding management and administrative 
compensation in the printing industry. As the petitioner submitted so little of the survey, it is not clear 
how the survey was conducted, who was surveyed, or whether it is representative of nationwide 
salaries in the field. It does appear that the survey was limited to those working specifically in the 
printing field as opposed to management employees in general. The record clearly shows that the 
beneficiary has worked in management dealing with a number of fields. The fact that the petitioner 
itself is a printing company does not mean that the beneficiary's field is limited to management of 
printing companies. 
Further, the petitioner submitted only two pages from the report, the first which dealt with firms with 
20 to 49 employees, and the other which dealt with sheetfed companies. It appears that the petitioner 
is attempting to limit the beneficiary's field, but the Service must take into consideration whether the 
beneficiary is extraordinary in the field of management overall, not whether he is extraordinary at 
managing printing companies with between 20 to 49 employees. Further, it appears that the survey 
was extremely limited, as it only collected salary date [sic] for presidents from 54 companies with 20 
to 49 employees and 89 companies which specialize in sheetfed printing. This does not appear to be 
adequately representative of nationwide salaries and remuneration in the field of management. 
Page 15 
We concur with the director's findings. Regarding the beneficiary's compensation for 2004, aside from the 
correspondence bearing the petitioner's letterhead dated June 5,2003; November 1,2004; and May 26,2006, we 
note that the record includes no supporting evidence (such as an income tax form or Form W-2, Wage and Tax 
Statement) showing the beneficiary's actual earnings for 2004 as reported to the Internal Revenue Service. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits "mean annual wage" statistics for "Management Occupations" and "General 
and Operations Managers" printed from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics internet 
site. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, the "Management Occupations" grouping 
includes jobs as diverse as "Farm, Ranch, and Other Agricultural Managers," "Food Service Managers," and 
"Funeral Directors." We note here that the beneficiary is a company president. As such, we find that 
evaluating his compensation in relation to other corporate business executives represents a more relevant 
comparison than the job categories selected by the petitioner. The petitioner also submits "average total 
compensation" statistics for "management consultants" and "senior consultants." For example, the 2004 
average total compensation for "senior consultants" was $123,305 .I In the preceding instances, the 
petitioner's use of "mean annual wage" and "average total compensation" statistics is not an appropriate basis 
for comparison. Rather than showing that the beneficiary's salary was simply above average in the field, the 
petitioner must submit evidence that the beneficiary commanded a "high salary" or other "significantly high 
remuneration" for services in relation to others in the field indicative of sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
We concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of 
a major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to 
establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that much of the preceding evidence should also be evaluated pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). This regulation allows for the submission of "comparable evidence," but 
only if the ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language 
precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for 
visa preference in the beneficiary's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). In fact, the September 10, 2006 letter submitted by the petitioner on 
appeal states that at least six of the ten criteria apply to the present case. 
In conclusion, whle the beneficiary is a talented manager of a small business located in Elkhart, Indiana, review 
of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may be 
1 
 Aside from his salary as president of Impressions, Inc., the only other salary information provided for the 
beneficiary's senior consulting work is contained in the May 1 1, 1999 from Michael Anable stating: "In this 
position, [the beneficiary] would work directly under my supervision as a Management Consultant . . . . The 
position is uncovered, thus is temporary and thus offered for one year at a salary of $61,943 annually . . . ." 
Page 16 
said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be with the small percentage at the very 
top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the beneficiary's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the 
beneficiary's eligbility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.