dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion !Jf persofl2X privacy 
DATE: 
NOV <) 3 2f)~1 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W., MS 2090 
Washinl!ton. 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 in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
JlJ?!h!tL f Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in business. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). . The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner has submitted comparable evidence of his 
extraordinary ability pursuant to the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). For the reasons 
discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if --
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Page 3 
u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. [d. and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence: 
(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 ajudge 
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 III the field, III 
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 
Page 4 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.! With respect to the criteria 
at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "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)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 
at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on June 5, 2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in business as an entrepreneur in the hotel and motel industry. The petitioner has 
submitted documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3).2 
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 order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for 
admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a 
given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall 
prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
letters stating that he is a member of the of 
Hotel and . the ociation of 
and The record, 
however, does not include evidence of the requirements as bylaws or rules of 
admission) for these organizations showing that they require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 
2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 
30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on 
appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers? 
for evidence, the petitioner submitted an article entitled 
in the June 2009 issue of the 
Wrangler, "A publication of the The author of the 
article was not identified as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The also submitted a June 28, 2009 article in the Kingsville Journal 
entitled unveil refurbished~" but the article post-dates the petition's June 5, 
2009 filing date. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 c.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of 
[zummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of 
Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider facts that come into being 
only subsequent to the filing of a petition." [d. at 176. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider 
the June 28, 2009 article in this proceeding. Nevertheless, there is no documentation (such as 
circulation evidence) showing that the Wrangler and the Kingsville Journal qualify as major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at 
*9. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted his academ_ic records' evidence of financial transactions; documentation 
pertaining to his incorporation of including financial statements, corporate income 
tax returns for 2004 through 2008, brochures for his photographs of the motel, a 
commer~t, and other miscellaneous tax . a franchise agreement 
betwee~ and financial statements for a 2008 
corporate income tax return for The petitioner also submitted certificates of filing, 
articles of organization, regulations, corporate income tax returns, financial statements, bank 
3 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only' 
_ for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 7 
for 
documentation relating to other local hotel and 
which he is involved. There is no evidence showing that the preceding documentation 
constitutes original business-related contributions of major significance in the hotel or motel 
industry. 
The petitioner's evidence also included letters of support from the Executive Director of the 
Chamber of Commerce, the Executive Director of the 
Young Performers Competitions of the Music 
and the Director of Operations and Support for 
The p~ letters praise the petitioner's 
entrepreneurial talents and cuss projects i~t is not enough to be talented and 
to have others attest to that talent. An alien must have demonstrably impacted his field in order 
to meet this regulatory criterion. Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not 
specifically identify original contributions or provide specific examples of how those 
contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th 
Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).4 The preceding references do not explain 
how the petitioner's contributions were original in the hotel and motel industry, nor do they 
provide specific examples of how his contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance in the field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's 
contributions must be not only original but 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). While the petitioner has earned the admiration of his 
references, there is no evidence demonstrating that he has made original business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate the 
extent of the petitioner's influence on trends in the hotel and motel industry beyond the local 
area, nor does it show that the field has significantly changed as a result of his original work. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885. at 
*9. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
4 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors 
attesting to [the alien's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant 
regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
The petitioner submitted his resume; an autobiographical statement; a business card ,.", ~~ 
him as 
as a 
card identifying him as 
franchisee); and letters of support from.~~~~~~ ••• iii 
Commerce, the Executive Director 
President & Chief Executive Officer of 
_International Young Performers Competitions 
the Mayor o~ and the Director of Operations 
Inc. franchise. 
The AAO notes that Part 5, item 3 of the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, lists 
the petitioner's occupation as "Entrepreneur." Further, Part 6, "Basic Information About the 
Proposed Employment," identifies the petitioner's job title as "Renowned Entrepreneur ... in the 
hotel and motel industry." The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to 
continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)( 1 )(A)(ii) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F'.R. § 204.5(h)(5). There is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner intends to continue to work in the aviation industry in the United States. Accordingly, 
the s role as a Group Leader of ' 
does not constitute evidence of his extraordinary ability in the field 
for which classification is sought, the hotel and motel industry. 
Nevertheless, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's role was leading or critical 
•• Not every employee or franchise general manager who 
~s competently for a corporation meets this criterion. The letter of support from _ 
_ Director of . , states that th~ 
"is a valued member of and a highly successful franchisee," but __ 
does not provide evidence such as specific financial data demonstrating the profitability of 
petitioner's _ranchise locations in relation to that of the company's other franchisees 
throughout the country. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. 
The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The 
petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how his and as a 
franchise General Manager at him from the other managers 
working for those corporations, top executives. For example, there is no 
organizational chart or other evidence documenting how the petitioner's positions fell within the 
preceding companies' general hierarchy. The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not 
establish that he was responsible for their success or standing of the preceding companies to a 
degree consistent with the meaning of . or critical role." Further, there is no documentary 
evidence showing that ~c. and have earned a distinguished 
reputation in their respective industries. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Page 9 
The petitioner also asse~s performed in a leading and critical role as Director, 
President, and owner of _ but there is no documentary evidence showing that the 
company has earned a distinguished reputation in the hotel or motel industry since its 
incorporation in 2002. As previously discussed, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at 
*9. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he 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. 
The petitioner submitted his and his spouse's unsigned U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns for 
2007 and 2008 reflecting total income Aside from being 
unsigned and not identifying an Employer Identification Number in Schedule C, the tax returns 
did not include a copy of the petitioner's Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, documenting his 
wages. Moreover, the submitted documentation does not indicate the income amounts 
attributable to the petitioner versus that of his spouse. In response to the director's request for 
evidence, the petitioner submitted Foreign Labor Certification Data Center "Online Wage 
Library" wage information for "Chief Executives" indicating that the Level 4 (fully competent) 
"prevailing wage" in metropolitan area is _ The petitioner has not 
established that these wage results are to those who perform similar work in the hotel 
and motel industry. Moreover, the petitioner's reliance on wage data limited to local 
"prevailing" wages is not an appropriate basis for comparison in demonstrating that his earnings 
constitute a "high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in 
the field." [Emphasis added.] The record is void of reliable earnings data showing that the 
petitioner has earned a "high salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in comparison with 
those performing similar work during the same time period. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994) (considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA 
Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL 
enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440,444-45 (N. D. Ill. 
1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). In the 
present case, the evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish his actual salary much less 
that he has received a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to 
others in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this criterion or offer 
additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 
Page 10 
F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Summary 
The AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Comparable Evidence Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) 
On appeal, counsel argues that the regulations include "a catch-all provision for comparable 
evidence where the ten criteria do not readily apply." Counsel further states: 
We have provided a considerable body of comparable evidence to show that [the 
petitioner] is truly an extraordinary entrepreneur at the top of his field of endeavor who 
has contributed considerably to areas of the national interest that while not as highly 
visible as some of the more widely known fields is of very high value to the national 
economy and job creation. This evidence includes expert testimony letters from people 
in a position to fully understand and opine on [the petitioner's] extraordinary talent as a 
micro-entrepreneur for the hospitality industry in a small town setting ... ; an investment 
summary showing the investment [the petitioner] has made here and the 25% growth 
which is far and away above the average of the hotel industry which has shown negligible 
to negative growth ... ; and detailed evidence about the jobs created and salvaged by his 
efforts, as well as background about the ailing towns in which he has invested. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" 
only if the ten categories of evidence "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The 
regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as the 
petitioner has failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that the categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) do not readily apply to his occupation. Where an alien is 
simply unable to meet three of the regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) does not allow for the submission of 
comparable evidence. Moreover, the AAO notes that the statute and regulations provide a 
separate immigrant visa classification for employment creation aliens. See section 203(b)(5) of 
the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.6. 
Regarding the reference letters submitted by the petitioner, the AAO notes that they have already 
been considered under the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (viii). 
Nevertheless, in the interest of thoroughness, the AAO will address these letters again even 
though there is no evidence that the categories of evidence at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) do not 
readily apply to the petitioner's occupation. 
Page 11 
[The petitioner] represents a rare and vital breed of entrepreneur who is able to go into 
small, ailing communities and strategically infuse capital and highly honed business 
acumen to transform hotel properties into thriving businesses, involving and enhancing 
the communities in which he has invested. This kind of skill should not be undervalued. 
I have seen many franchisees try and fail in similar circumstances, particularly in these 
difficult economic times. Entrepreneurs who succeed and rise to the top of their field 
such as [the petitioner], must have an extraordinarily high level of skill, resourcefulness, 
and vision to bring projects to fruition in the small town context. The challenges are 
immense. As an example of [the petitioner's] innovative solutions to the problems of 
investing in risky small towns, the _ concept which allows a number of 
investors to pool funds and avoid the stagnant loan market as much as possible stands 
out. This micro-investment strategy is particularly well-suited for the distressed small 
town environment and has met with considerable success. Without these alternative 
micro-investment strategies, growth and development in these small towns would fail 
with the credit market. 
Whil~ndicates that the petitioner is a successful __ ranchisee in a "small town 
conte~no evidence showing that the petitioner has earned national or internal acclaim 
in the hotel or motel industry for his investment strategies. The AAO notes that numerous 
entrepreneurs operate successful franchise businesses in local communities throughout the 
United States. Nothing in the record sets the petitioner apart from these other successful small 
business owners at national or international level. _ also asserts that the petitioner has 
risen to the top of his field, but merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does 
not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 
1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Executive Director of the ~H'''H''',,",L of Commerce, states: 
[The petitioner's] proven record in our community has demonstrated beyond a doubt to 
me that he is one of the extraordinary few entrepreneurs in his field. These projects 
include the purchase and re-making of two hotels in _nto real showpieces. He 
has provided needed jobs in both the construction and ho~industries. Recently 
[the petitioner] bought and renovated an empty building o~ Bypass next to one 
of his hotels. He has created a conference and meeting center for this community to use at 
a nominal fee. This building was a real eyesore as you enter _and his redesign 
has greatly added to the appeal of one of the main entry points to the city. 
[The petitioner] also innovated a program that allows micro-investors to be able to invest 
in property at low-risk and in small amounts as an alternative to mortgages. Particularly 
in this climate where mortgages are harder and harder to come by, this has been a work of 
ingenuity, perfectly crafted to fit circumstances and the obstacles facing investors and 
business and an example of how [the petitioner], operating at the micro-level, is able to 
Page 12 
move with pinpoint accuracy to address business issues that larger institutions would not 
be able to address. 
While the petitioner's work is recognized and admired in there is no evidence 
showing that his investment strategies are nationally or internationally acclaimed in the hotel 
industry. 
VP/~lltl"P Director of the_ Convention & Visitors Bureau, states: 
We first met when [the petitioner] purchased a large accommodationlhotel in_ 
The property [the petitioner] purchased was badly in need of being upgraded. He 
immediately began researching the needs of his property and has successfully brought it 
up to date and recaptured the positive image it had once enjoyed. 
[The petitioner's] financial investments in this endeavor over a three year period totaled 
over $1,250,000. A variety of laborers were hired to complete the much needed 
renovations, thus creating ten or more new jobs in our community. 
* * * 
This new business and increase of his revenue has had a profound impact on our city in 
the way of taxes from his business as well as expenditures and taxes from the visitors. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] is known by our organization as outstanding and well above average in 
the hotel industry. He is a person with extraordinary ability, capability, aggressiveness, 
and we are pr~ him in _[The petitioner] is considered at the top of 
his field at the_ Convention and Visitors Bureau and in the City of _ 
-Although the petitioner's work has had an impact in _ there is no evidence showing 
that his business strategies are nationally or internationally acclaimed in the hotel or motel 
industry. Moreover, there is no documentary evidence distinguishing the petitioner's 
achievements from other successful hotel operators and franchisees. 
-'-President & Chief Executive Officer states: 
The motels are well located and one has recently been remodeled. We know of no 
derogatory information regarding the motels, or [the petitioner's] business practices, and 
believe him to be a good, sound and responsible owner and operator. In addition to his 
professionalism, [the petitioner's] business accomplishments include, but are not limited 
Page 13 
to a role in the development of 
the 
and 
[The petitioner's] financial reports indicate that he is in an elite group that has risen to the 
top of his field of business: he invested _over three years in improving the 
poor condition of the Ten new jobs were created during 
the construction phase and revenue increased 2002 to $1,200,000 in 
2008. 
There is no evidence showing that the petitioner's projects have significantly impacted the hotel 
or motel industry in the United States or attracted any attention (such as coverage in major trade 
publications) beyond th~ localities where they were undertaken. 
has rendered invaluable financial aid and assistance to the _ 
in 
As developer and co-director . . . of the Young Performer's project it has been my 
pleasure to work with [the petitioner]. [The petitioner] has provided free 
accommodations in his motel for our contest judges ... and our staff accompanists, and 
has offered very accommodations for the talented young musicians 
accepted into the I would estimate that [the 
petitioner's] assistance with over $1000 
financial aid each year .... 
While the AAO acknowledges the petitioner's generosity in providing local financial aid and 
assistance to the Kingsville competition, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that 
his work as "manager of the s indicative of sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
[The petitioner's] projects have met with considerable success in a time when the 
economic climate is decidedly grim. This incontrovertible fact alone sets [the petitioner] 
apart; however, [the petitioner] ranks as an entrepreneur of extraordinary ability for his 
particular faculty for identifying the business opportunities inherent in properties that 
have lost their value and that others would pass by. He is able to bring his considerable 
talents to bear in a small town environment to rehabilitate these and add value and 
economic growth while navigating tricky and contrary national trends and the particular 
needs of the small town investment environment. He has done this repeatedly over the 
course of his career, and in doing so brought business, growth, and employment to our 
community. Only very few entrepreneurs have this ability to create this kind of growth in 
a difficult climate. [The petitioner] is one of these few. 
[The petitioner] is without a doubt a valuable asset as a member of our community as 
well as the surrounding areas in which he conducts business. 
Once again, although the petitioner's work has had an impact in is no evidence 
showing that his business strategies are nationally or internationally acclaimed in the hotel or 
motel industry. Moreover, there is no documentary evidence distinguishing the petitioner's 
achievements from other successful hotel operators and franchisees. 
Regarding the reference letters submitted by the petitioner, the AAO notes that they are limited 
to members of the petitioner's local community in _and an employee of the company with 
which he has a franchise agreement. While such letters are important in providing details about 
the petitioner's role in various projects, they cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. The statutory requirement that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained 
national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond his~cality 
and his direct business acquaintances. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, reference letters are not comparable to 
extensive evidence of the alien's achievements and recognition as required by the statute and 
regulations. The nonexistence of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 c.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(2)(i). The classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained 
national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations 
implementing the 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 lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30704 (July 5, 1991). Primary evidence of achievements and recognition is of far greater probative 
value than opinion statements from references selected by the petitioner. 
Moreover, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from references supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; 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"). Thus, the content of the references' statements and how they became 
aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less 
weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of an entrepreneur who has 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
Page 15 
With regard to the "Investment Summary" document identified by counsel, the AAO notes that 
this document was prepared by the petitioner. USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. 
See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (c. D. CA July 6,2007) aii'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (9th 
Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a 
magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). There is no evidence indicating that the 
data shown in this report is based on audited financial statements or independent property 
appraisals. Moreover, the Investment Summary states that the "Number of 
Employees is estimated only." While the AAO acknowledges 
comments that the petitioner's work created ten new jobs in their local community, there is no 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's local job creation numbers and investment 
growth constitute achievements consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the 
very top of his field. A final merits determination that considers all of the evidence follows. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
The AAO will next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the 
context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of 
endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 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." Section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In the 
present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have 
already been addressed in the AAO's discussion of the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (v), (viii), and (ix). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), as previously discussed, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's 
associations require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in the petitioner's field. The petitioner has not established that 
his memberships are indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of 
expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his 
field. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the AAO notes that only one of the articles had been published as of the 
petition's filing date. Further, the petitioner failed to submit evidence demonstrating that the 
material about him was published in major trade publications or other major media. The local 
the Kingsville Journal and in a publication of the 
is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim 
or a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of his field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
the AAO acknowledges the letters of support the Executive Director of the _ Chamber of 
Page 16 
and the Director of Operations and Support for the •••••••• 
Inc. franchise. These letters and the documentation pertaining to the petitioner's investment 
projects fail to establish that he has made original business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field. Merely demonstrating that the petitioner is a successful Super 8 
franchisee, local investor, and hotel operator is not useful in setting the petitioner apart from other 
entrepreneurs through a "career of acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). That page (59) also says that "an alien must (1) demonstrate sustained national or 
international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics (as shown through 
extensive documentation) ... " In this case, the record does not establish that the petitioner's work 
had major significance in the field, let alone an impact consistent with being nationally or 
internationally acclaimed as extraordinary. The documentation submitted by the petitioner for 
the category of evidence at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) is not indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the petitioner has not established that he has performed in a leading or critical 
role for organizations that have a distinguished reputation. The documentation submitted by the 
petitioner is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise 
indicating that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix), there is no reliable evidence demonstrating that petitioner's remuneration is 
"significantly high" in relation to others performing similar work or that his level of 
compensation places him among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field. The documentation submitted by the petitioner is not indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. 
In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of filing were 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as an entrepreneur in the hotel and 
motel industry, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The 
conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Ultimately, 
the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). While the petitioner need 
not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than himself to qualify for the 
classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is above the level he has 
attained. 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 
1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.