dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwmted 
invasion of persoaal pim 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC cow 
/$% * 3 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 1 4 2006 
SRC 05 026 52055 
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. 9 1153(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. 
/I 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to quali@ for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Specifically, the director concluded that 
the petitioner had not submitted evidence relating to any of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an alien 
must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the opinions of his tenants and a friend who appears to work for 
the German Consulate in Argentina are sufficient to establish his international recognition. The 
petitioner's statements on appeal are difficult to comprehend and do not appear to explain how he 
meets at least three of the regulatory criteria. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
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. 9 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
According to Part 6 of the petition, it seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a "business operations specialist." The petitioner operates a business purchasing, renovating 
and managing residential property. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, international 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. The criteria follow. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
Page 4 
The petitioner initially submitted (1) his resume (including the company's objectives and organization 
chart), (2) character references from business associates in Argentina, (3) an attestation as to the 
improvements to a residential building owned and managed by the petitioner signed by his tenants, (4) 
a description of the petitioner's investment and upgrade plans, (5) evidence of property ownership by 
the petitioner's company, (6) the company's incorporation and licensing documentation, financial 
statements, 2003 tax return reflecting a net loss of $4,117 and bank and credit card statements and (7) 
the petitioner's law degree, bank statements and 2003 tax returns reflecting an adjusted gross income of 
$6,133. 
On February 26, 2005, the director advised the petitioner of the ten criteria listed above and requested 
evidence to meet at least three. The director also asked the petitioner to compare himself with others in 
the field. In response, the petitioner stated that he is submitting evidence relating to the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(i),(vi) and (x), but did not explain how the evidence submitted relates to awards, 
contributions and commercial success. The petitioner then asserted that his knowledge in the field 
elevates him above others in the field. He chronicled his experience and discusses what makes a good 
manager, including the removal of vroblem tenants. The vetitioner submitted an unsigned letter from 
- 
D Consul ~onorsio of the Federal ~e~iblic of Germany who asserts that he served 
in Argentina's military with the petitioner and worked as a fellow attorney with the petitioner. An 
- 
unsigned letter has no evidentiary value. The petitioner also submitted several complaints filed by the 
petitioner's company against tenants. 
The director acknowledged the evidence submitted and concluded that the petitioner had not submitted 
evidence relating to the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the director concluded that 
recommendation letters do not constitute awards or prizes, that the petitioner's success did not rise to 
the level of a contribution of major significance to the field, that the petitioner had not demonstrated 
that his business enjoyed a distinguished reputation, that the petitioner's wages were not demonstrated 
to be significantly high and that the petitioner had not submitted any evidence of memberships, 
published material about him or scholarly articles authored by him. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director did not properly value the "public testimonies" 
submitted. Although the wording is unclear, the petitioner appears to assert that the testimonies, if 
properly valued, are sufficient evidence in place of meeting at least three criteria. He asserts that he 
goes beyond the tasks of a good manager, converting insecure buildings into attractive places to live. 
The petitioner asserts that the support of more than 20 tenants "who without knowing myself' and the 
letter from ~r."who represents to a German colony of more than 300,000 inhabitants in his 
zone, and to whom I am his counselor in Miami in investments" demonstrate his "international 
recognition." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(4) permits the submission of "comparable" evidence where the 
criteria are not "readily applicable." In order to rely on this provision, the petitioner must first 
demonstrate that the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable. The petitioner's inability to meet any 
of the criteria does not make them inapplicable to his field. The petitioner has not established that no 
Page 5 
awards exist in the field of business, that there are no exclusive business memberships, that renowned 
business leaders are not featured in the mainstream media or in trade journals, that business executives 
are never called upon to judge the work of others, that major contributions to the business field are 
never recognized beyond one's associates, that business executives never author scholarly articles in 
their field, that business executives never play leading or critical roles for entities with distinguished 
reputations and that there are no highly paid business leaders. Thus, while we acknowledge that artistic 
display and commercial success in the performing arts are not applicable to the petitioner's field, the 
petitioner has not established that the remaining eight, of which the petitioner must meet three, are 
inapplicable. In fact, the commentary to the final rule published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897-01, 60898 
(November 29, 1991), provides: "Several of the criteria, including such indicia of achievement as 
awards, articles by or about the alien in major publications, and salary level, are written in terms 
broadly applicable even within the business community." 
Without evidence that the regulatory criteria are inapplicable to the petitioner's field, we cannot 
conclude that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(4) permits the submission of comparable evidence 
in this matter. The petitioner has not attempted to rebut the director's analysis of why the evidence 
does not relate to the ten criteria. Specifically, the petitioner does not contest that letters are not awards, 
that his income of $6,133 is not significantly high in the field of business or that the renovations he has 
completed have not influenced the field nationally such that they can be considered major contributions 
to the field of business (as opposed to the lives of his tenants). The petitioner also fails to explain how 
any of the other evidence relates to any of the other criteria. We concur with the director's analysis, 
discussed in detail above. 
Even if the petitioner had established that the regulatory criteria were inapplicable, the petitioner has 
not established that the evidence provided is "comparable" to the objective evidence of acclaim 
normally required. Whether or not his tenants have actually met him, their signatures on a petition 
prepared by someone else can hardly be considered independent and objective opinions as to his rank in 
the field. Moreover, the petitioner has not established that his tenants are business experts in their own 
right. As such, the petitioner has not established their expertise in evaluatin his credentials and 
business accomplishments. Finally, even if we considered the letter from Mr 
* 
espite the lack of 
a signature, the letter is not persuasive. First Mr. 
 does not explain w y he served in the 
Argentine military with the petitioner if he (Mr # is a German citizen. Moreover, every attorney 
making a living in his occupation has clients. Thus, the fact that the petitioner represented ~r- 
corporation in La Plata does not demonstrate the petitioner's national or international acclaim. National 
or international acclaim necessitates recognition beyond the tenants living in the building one owns and 
one's own clients. 
Finally, the subjective opinions of tenants and clients, or even independent experts, while not without 
weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of sustained national or international 
acclaim. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding 
an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id The submission of letters from experts supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS may even give less weight to an 
opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. 
at 795; See also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Crafr of California, 14 I&N Dec. 1 90 (Reg. Comm. 1 972)). 
Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than 
new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained 
national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that 
acclaim. The statute requires extensive documentation to establish eligibility for this classification. 
The regulations require that an alien of extraordinary ability be able to demonstrate sustained national 
or international acclaim. Assuming that the beneficiary is a talented and knowledgeable business 
operations specialist, the record does not reflect that he has attained any national acclaim for that talent. 
Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted documentation that meets any of the ten criteria. 
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 the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
business operations specialist to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national 
or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a business operations specialist, but is not persuasive that 
the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility 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.