dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

ident~fyh1g data deleted to 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
• • t: ~. 
InvaSion f.h per&G~l<1& privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: DEC 1 3 2011 Office: NEBRASKA 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 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office 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)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
,)ibtJdhd0 
J Perry Rhew 
tv Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which 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)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit 
extensive documentation of her 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; H.R. 
723 lOIS! Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 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, the petitioner submits a brief with no new documentary evidence. For the reasons discussed 
below, the AAO upholds the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established her 
eligibility for the classification sought. 
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. 723 101 st 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. Id.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under 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 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 
-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)(1)(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 8 c.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(iv); Soltane v. DOl, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
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). 
-PageS 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
submits the "Star Employee of the Year Award" from her employer, 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet this criterion. 
Counsel's brief indicates that selected the petitioner for this award out of 
50 other employees. The petitioner failed to provide any evidence related to the national or 
international recognition of this award so as to establish its recognition beyond 
_ Additionally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires 
evidence of "prizes" and "awards" in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory requirement for 
extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 c.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
(ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion 
wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can 
infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal 
courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in 
a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); 
Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an 
interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets the plain language requirements of 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. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must establish. First, the petitioner 
must demonstrate that she is a member of more than one association in her field. Second, the petitioner 
must demonstrate that the associations require outstanding achievements (in the plural) of its members. 
The final requirement is that admittance is judged, or adjudicated, by nationally or internationally 
recognized experts in their field. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
-Page 6 
The petitioner presents a certificate reflecting her membership in The Institute of Chartered Accountants 
of Nigeria (ICAN), and two web page printouts from this same institution. The director determined that 
the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. 
Regarding her membership in ICAN, on appeal the petitioner resubmits the membership page from 
ICAN's website. The information states: 
A person shall be enrolled as a chartered accountant if: a. He passes the qualifying 
examination for membership conducted by the Council of the Institute and completes any 
prescribed training, (section 8(1)(a)) OR b. He holds a qualification granted outside 
Nigeria and for the time being accepted by the Institute, and he satisfies the Council of the 
Institute that he had sufficient practical experience as an Accountant (Section 8(1)(b)). 
Admission to membership as a Chartered Accountant, in pursuance of section 8(1)(a) of 
the Act, can be obtained by serving a specific period under articles of approved 
studentship and by passing the Institute's professional examinations. 
Membership in this association consists of serving an unspecified amount of time as a student and by 
subsequently passing an examination. This evidence fails to establish that ICAN requires outstanding 
achievements of its members. It also appears that a "Council" determines if the applicant passes the 
examination for membership. The petitioner has not provided evidence indicating that this "Council" is 
comprised of recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields, which the 
regulation requires. As previously stated, the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires evidence of "membership in associations" in the plural, which is consistent 
with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 U.s.c. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). As previously noted, the AAO can infer that the plural language in the regulatory 
criteria has meaning and that federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from 
whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 
(RCL) at *12; Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (upholding an interpretation 
that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
The petitioner failed to establish she meets the plain language of 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 allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
Counsel's brief indicates the four witness letters from _ 
_ and establish the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. , It is not 
apparent from these witness letters that the petitioner has judged the work of others in her field. While 
the petitioner may, as an auditor, determine if an organization has complied with a particular regulation, 
this is not in line with serving as a judge of the work of others in the petitioner's field or an allied field. 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence that the beneficiary has served as "a 
judge" of the work of others. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, 
Page 7 
either on a panel or individually as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). In this instance, the 
regulation cannot be read to include every informal instance of an individual performing the normal and 
expected functions of their job, as an accounting auditor, as qualifying activity under this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not provide a persuasive argument or any apparent evidence for 
consideration under this criterion. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
In reference to the petitioner mastering the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the petitioner has not demonstrated 
how such knowledge is any different from the expectations of all those who occupy the petitioner's 
position as well as any other competent accountant. The fact that the petitioner is competent in her job 
is not equal to her providing original contributions of major significance in her field. 
The letter from _ provides general assertions and lacks any specificity of original 
contributions or major significance on the part of the petitioner. _ states that he "is aware that 
[the petitioner] exhibited extraordinary abilities working for .. [and the 
petitioner] had a m~ on the implementation of the accounting software and internal controls in 
the Organization." __ also indicates the petitioner performed research for his organization and, 
"analyzed the internal control setting in the organization as a whole from an international~ 
It is not from this letter what original contributions the petitioner made for_ 
also fails to identify what impact the petitioner's contributions may have had 
beyond company, which would lend credence to the position that these contributions were 
of major significance in her field. 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). 
Additionally, this witness letter asserts the petitioner contributed to using 
content which appears to be directly copied from the Internet and pasted into the witness letter. The 
se~tter titled, "Propriety and Reliability" appears to derive dire~ article written 
by_, titled Objective of Internal Control? It is unclear whether __ is attempting to 
attribute work to the petitioner that is not her own or if he is merely indicating that she was following a 
process already in place. Regardless,~se of language which appears to be taken directly 
3 http://www.chow.com/about 5479743 objcctives-intemal-control.html, [accessed on October 25,2011, a copy 
of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding.] 
Page 8 
from a source that is not his own, calls into question the remainder of the claims made in his letter. 
Nevertheless, this letter is insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
The letter from indicates the petitioner developed a plan for a South African 
company that required "a great deal of thought and effort on [the petitioner's] behalf which ultimately 
resulted in increased revenue." The author asserts that during the petitioner's tenure, the South African 
company experienced revenue increases equal to one million U.S. dollars and that these revenue 
increases were "a direct result of the plans implemented." The letter continues to state, "[The 
petitioner] gave us plenty of insight using her international knowledge on the training modules for our 
Accounting department which has greatly enhanced and will continue to enhance our productivity; her 
efforts focused on controls and following [the petitioner's] implementation has produced high quality 
results for my company in South Africa time and time again." The record contains no probative 
evidence of the petitioner's plan she developed for the South African company. This letter contains 
assertions about the petitioner's actions for the South African company, which are not corroborated by 
evidence within the record. 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)). 
As previously discussed, the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that 
the contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than limited to one's immediate employer 
and a few of its customers. Aside from South African company, there is no 
documentary evidence showing the widespread impact of the petitioner's work or that it otherwise 
equates to an original contribution of major significance in the field. This letter asserts the petitioner 
provided this . insight based on her international . quality results. 
Similar to letter, the segment of the letter titled, ' areas of focus 
include the services:" appears to derive directly from the Ernst & Young web site.4 The fact 
that evidence is infused with content that is actually the work of an individual who is in no apparent 
way related to the petitioner or to the author of the letter calls into question the propriety of the rest of 
the claims within the letter. Nevertheless, this letter is insufficient to contribute to the petitioner 
establishing eligibility under this criterion. 
The letter from indicates this individual reviewed the petitioner's work, which 
involved an audit of the United States Postal Services (USPS) where the petitioner "was able to get the 
clients [USPS] to conform with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and hence contributed 
highly to the success of the firm in that regard." The letter continues to outline the petitioner's abilities 
and accomplishments as an auditor with experience in regulatory compliance. The petitioner's 
accomplishments contained in this letter are representative of an accounting auditor with a common 
4 http://www.ey.comlUS/cn/Serviccs/ Advisory/IT -Risk-and-Assurancc/ff -lntcrnal-
Controls/AdvisOlY ITRA IT internal controls areas of focus, [accessed on October 25,2011, a copy of which 
is incorporated into the record of proceeding.] 
-Page 9 
level of accomplishments rather than one who has provided accomplishments of major significance to 
her field. 
Additionally, this letter asserts the petItIOner "broke down" the Sarbanes-Oxley Act describing 
mandates and other financial reporting requirements. The letter continues to summarize the titles of the 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act to include content that appears to be directly copied from the Internet and pasted 
into the witness letter. The text from this segment of the letter is an exact match to a Wikipedia web 
site.s The fact that evidence is mixed with content that purports to be original information, but is 
actually the work of an unrelated individual, calls into question the propriety of the rest of the claims 
within the letter. Nevertheless, this letter is insufficient to contribute to the petitioner establishing 
eligibility under this criterion. 
recounts knowledge he possesses of the petitioner's past work. 
Additionally, recounts the petitioner's work in his marketing department where the 
petitioner performed work "focusing on the internal controls and accounting responsibilities r which] 
contributed to the huge success of my organization." The plain language of this criterion requires 
original contributions of major significance to the field as a whole rather than simply to the petitioner's 
employer. The petitioner provides no documentary evidence showing the widespread effect of her work 
or that it otherwise equates to an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
then indicates the specific actions the petitioner performed for his organization to 
assertions of the petitioner's accomplishments within his marketing department. 
statements derive directly from multiple web sites and are not representative of the petitioner's actIons 
for his marketing department, which the AAO outlines below: 
• The section titled, "Extending the service life cycle" is taken directly from The Times 100, an 
online educational resource for United Kingdom business students.6 
• The section titled, "Promoting the Service brand" is also taken directly from The Times 100.7 
• The section titled, "The use of marketing mix in product launch: is also taken from two web 
pages on The Times 100.8 
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)). While letters such as 
5 http://en.wikipedia.orglwiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%930xley Act#cite note-3, [accessed on October 25,2011, a 
copy of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding.] 
6 http://www.thetimesIOO.co.ukldownloads/kelloggs/kelloggs 13 full.pdf, and [accessed on October 25, 2011, a 
copy of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding.] 
7 http://www.thetimeslOO.co.uklcase-study--promoting-the-brand--35-334-2.php, [accessed on October 25,2011, 
a copy of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding.] 
8 http://www.thetimeslOO.co.ukldownloads/niveainivea 13 fulLpdf and 
hUp:llwww.thetimes 1 OO.co.ukltheorv/theory--the-extended-marketing-mix-(7ps)--319.php [accessed on October 
25, 2011, copies of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding.] 
Page 10 
those above are relevant in providing details about the petitioner's role in various projects, they cannot 
by themselves establish the petitioner's eligibility as they lack evidence of specific contributions. There 
is insufficient evidence to determine how the petitioner's contributions have impacted her 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. The AAO must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 
F. 3d 28,31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15,2003). To be 
considered a contribution of major significance in the field of business, it can be expected that the 
results would reflect the impression the petitioner's work has had on the field as a whole. The petitioner 
has failed to provide such evidence, and as previously noted, the assertions within the witness letters are 
insufficient to establish eligibility under this criterion. As a consequence, the petitioner has not 
established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
On appeal, counsel claims the petitioner qualifies under this criterion, but the record contains no 
primary evidence of any article that has appeared in . or major trade publications or other 
major media. Although the second page of the letter references a publication, the 
record does not mention the title, date, or the name the publication in which it was purportedly 
published. This is clearly insufficient as the record contains no evidence of the aforementioned 
publication and counsel even fails to identify this publication within the appeal brief. However, the 
record does contain an audit report titled Internal Control and Fraud Considerations and Design. This 
appears to be a report related to the petitioner's work with the United States Postal Service as the 
initialism "USPS" is "whited out" at the top of the report's cover page. The petitioner has failed to 
establish that this report is a scholarly article or that it appeared in a professional or major trade 
publication or other major media. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires evidence of "scholarly 
articles" in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 
203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A)(i). As previously noted, the AAO can infer that 
the plural language in the regulatory criteria has meaning and that federal courts have upheld USCIS' 
ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See 
Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12; Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 
3491005 at *10. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peiformed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and that it be 
accompanied by the role's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's 
impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The petitioner's performance in this role 
-Page 11 
should establish whether the role was critical. Counsel offers no specific argument regarding any role 
of the petitioner, which was leading or critical. 
Although the petitioner's resume indicates she has held several positions of audit supervisor/manager 
for different companies, a review of the record does not reveal any evidence which establishes that she 
performed in a leading or critical role to corroborate this assertion. The AAO will not infer the nature 
of the petitioner's role solely from the job title. Additionally, the witness letters discussed above assert 
the petitioner played a critical role for various organizations; however, the petitioner failed to provide 
sufficient evidence to corroborate these assertions such as an organizational chart differentiating the 
petitioner from other supervisors and managers. The petitioner also failed to provide evidence that any 
of these entities enjoy a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the petitioner does not provide any 
argument or additional evidence for consideration under this criterion. The AAO, therefore, considers 
this issue to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. u.s. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (lIth 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 plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she 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 record contains no evidence that actually establishes any salary the petitioner has received for her 
services such as a Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement. The record does contain ajob offer letter from 
However, at filing, this was a future offer rather than a salary that 
the petitioner has already commanded. The petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of 
the petition at the time of filing. 8 c.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (l2). A petition may not be approved if the 
beneficiary was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. 
See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Counsel's brief indicates the four witness letters from _ 
_ and establish the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. However, it is not 
apparent from these witness letters that the petitioner has commanded a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration relative to others in her field. Specifically, none of the letters reference 
the petitioner's salary or any form of compensation she has received. More importantly, the petitioner 
fails to provide any evidence to juxtapose against her salary that might indicate a salary she has 
commanded is high compared to others in her field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that 
she meets this criterion. 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three of the 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Nevertheless, the AAO will 
review the evidence in the aggregate as part of our final merits determination. 
-Page 12 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step is 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.P.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." 
8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
The petitioner claims that she qualifies under the lesser awards or prizes criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). As qualifying evidence the petitioner provides an employee recognition award from 
An award from a single company without national or international 
recognition is not representative of sustained national or international acclaim or status as one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. 
Similarly, the petitioner claims that she qualifies under the membership in associations in the field 
which require outstanding achievements of their members criterion at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) based 
upon her membership in ICAN. Membership in a single association which is based upon minimal 
entrance standards open to most in the profession is not indicative of someone with a career of 
acclaimed work who has risen to the very top of the field. 
The petitioner also claims to have judged the work of others as an accounting auditor. The nature of the 
beneficiary'S judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of 
the beneficiary's national or international acclaim. See Kazarian, 596 P.3d at 1122. Typical work as an 
accounting auditor or supervisor is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim or status as one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their 
field of endeavor. 
The petitioner's contributions of major significance are not represented within the record of proceeding, 
outside of an accounting auditor's standard work. The assertions within the witness letters are not 
corroborated with any type of primary evidence. Simply performing an auditor's ordinary duties is not 
representative of one who has achieved sustained national or international acclaim or status as one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. 
The petitioner's authorship of a report titled, Internal Control and Fraud Considerations and Design, 
was found insufficient to meet the scholarly articles criterion at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Pursuant to 
the reasoning in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122, the field's response to this document may be and will be 
considered in our final merits determination. The petitioner provides no information relating to the 
document's impact on her field, nor of any response to this document. Counsel's brief asserts the 
petitioner authored this "review" and that it "offers extensive coverage of subjects on the regulation of 
banks and securities markets." Counsel continues by asserting this "volume" is indispensible reading 
for all interested in international banking and finance." It remains that the petitioner has not provided 
-Page 13 
evidence of the impact of this document on her field. She therefore, cannot be considered to be one 
who has achieved sustained national or international acclaim or status as one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. 
The petitioner provides witness letters without corroborating evidence asserting she played a critical 
role in organizations. However, these witness letters lack the specificity to show the petitioner 
performed a leading or critical role for the organizations. The reputation of each organization also 
remains in question as the petitioner failed to provide any evidence to establish each organization 
enjoyed a distinguished reputation. Additionally, each of these letters incorporate long segments-of 
information derived from web sites that are not related to the petitioner or to the respective organization. 
The petitioner has not established she has attained sustained national or international acclaim or status 
as one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor related to this 
criterion. 
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. The petitioner, an accounting auditor, 
relies on a company award, membership in a Nigerian accountant group in which admittance is based 
on passing an examination after serving a specific period of time as an approved student, performing the 
normal and expected duties of an auditor, vague and questionable witness letters alleging the critical 
roles the petitioner performed, and one "review" or "volume" which has made no apparent impact on 
the petitioner's field. This is not sufficient to distinguish the petitioner from other accounting auditors. 
Thus, it appears that the highest level of the petitioner's field is far above the level she has attained. 
III. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as an 
accounting auditor to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is 
not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her 
field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203 (b)(1 )(A) of the Act 
and the petition may not be approved. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the 
-Page 14 
petItIOner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.