dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

identifying d&a deleted to 
prevent clearly ww~ted 
invesi~ of pawaal privacy 
rW4LEC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: LIN 07 048 52046 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 3UN 1 8 2008 
IN RE: 
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. !j 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 07 048 52046 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition and reaffirmed that decision on motion. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) 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 1153(b)(l)(A). After issuing 
a detailed and specific request for additional evidence and considering the response, which failed to 
address many of the director's concerns, the director determined the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualifjr for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. On motion, the petitioner failed to submit the documentation identified by the 
director as lacking. Thus, the director reaffirmed the initial denial. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence, most of which was already in the record of 
proceeding. The petitioner has not, however, submitted the evidence noted as lacking by the director, 
such as evidence of high-level wages in the petitioner's occupation for comparison purposes and 
evidence of the circulation of the publications that carried his articles. Even if he had submitted the 
evidence on appeal, the petitioner was on notice of these deficiencies from the request for additional 
evidence. Thus, we would have been precluded from considering that evidence on appeal.' 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) 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 
1 
 The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for 
the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. $$ 103.2(b)(8), (12). 
The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for 
denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(14). 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533 (BIA 1988). 
LIN 07 048 52046 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and the 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60898-9 (Nov. 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 he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classifl the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a management 
consultant. 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 petitioner has submitted evidence that, he 
claims, meets the following   rite ria.^ 
Documentation of the alien S recebt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the$eld of endeavor. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence that Executive Excellence Publishing listed the petitioner as 
68th within the top 100 leadership consultants. The introduction to the list provides: 
Leadership consultants who make the top 100 possess a rare combination of both 
substance and presentation style, inspiring action and real world performance, while 
working tirelessly towards implementing change. Top 100 consultants excel in the 
areas of: credibility, relevance, originality, practicality, ideas, presentation style, and 
their guru score (the influence of their work). 
While the petitioner submitted this evidence with the initial submission, counsel only asserted that the 
ranking serves to meet this criterion in response to the director's request for additional evidence. On 
motion, counsel merely asserted that this evidence demonstrates that the petitioner "has received 
significant recognition for achievements." The director concluded that the petitioner had failed to 
demonstrate the significance of this achievement. On appeal, counsel simply requests that CIS consider 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision.