dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

de;.. !; an- 
of pi~s~t rtd O~V* 
1I.S. Department of Hon~eland Securilj 
U.S. Citizenship and lmn~igration Services 
($?ice ofildt~~it~i.svcrtive ,4ppecrls MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
LIN 08 136 5 1724 
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. 5 1 1 53(b)(1 )(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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(I)(i). 
&W,"" 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, on March 27, 2009, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as 
an alien of extraordinary ability in business. The director determined that the petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the beneficiary had the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify 
for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the 
petitioner had failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 
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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (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. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on April 4, 2008, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a marketing and business executive in pharmaceuticals. 
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, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria. 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the beneficiary meets a specific criterion, 
the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent 
with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted photographs of the beneficiary's following awards: 
on September 17, 199 1, 
Third Place for Outstanding Sales Achievement on December 16, 
- The General Manager's Bronze Star Award on August 29, 1986, 
Presidential on July 26, 1988, from the Rotary Club of 
1988, from 
San Pedro, 
District 382; 
5. Plaque of Appreciation on February 11, 1989, from the Rotary Club of San 
Pedro, District 382; 
6. Certificate of Achievement on January 23, 1997, for successful completion of 
the Medicine Shoppe's International Management Assistant Training; 
7. Certificate of Achievement on December 7, 2001, for completing What Matters 
Most workshop; 
8. Certificate of Graduation on September 10, 1994, for successfully completing 
The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People course; and 
9. Certificate of Appreciation on February 10, 2001, for contributing to the 
seminar, Business Brainstorms: A Glimpse on the Role of Future Leaders. 
We note here that the petitioner also submitted photographs of trophies for other alleged awards won 
by the beneficiary. However, the photographs are unclear, and we are unable to determine not only 
the nature of the awards but also if the beneficiary was even granted the awards. Accordingly, the 
evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
The documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that the beneficiary's 
receipt of company awards, certificates of appreciation, and successful completion of courses are 
tantamount to his receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the 
field. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires the "receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." The petitioner 
failed to establish that the submitted documentation reflects nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards. 
Regarding the beneficiary's successful completion of training courses and academic study is not a 
field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor or furtherance of an individual's career. 
As such, successfully completing courses cannot be considered a prize or award in the petitioner's 
field of endeavor. Further, the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
specifically requires that the beneficiary's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the 
field of endeavor and it is the petitioner's burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this 
case, there is no evidence showing that the beneficiary's awards commanded a significant level of 
recognition beyond the context of the events where they were presented. The petitioner's awards are 
limited to company recognition rather than national or international recognition. The beneficiary's 
receipt of such awards offers no meaningful comparison between him and experienced professionals 
outside of Glaxo Philippines, Inc. 
The petitioner did not contest the decision of the director in this criterion on appeal. We agree with 
the finding of the director. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzj?cation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner claims the beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion based on his membership with the 
Rotary Club of San Pedro and the National Federation of Hog Farmers, Inc (NFHFI). Regarding the 
~otar; Club, the petitioner submitted a certification from - 
NFHFI from 1987- 1988, stating that the beneficiary was elected as a member of the Rotary Club and 
created a youth club within and named it ~otaract-club of San Pedro, which was recognized by the 
Rotary International based in Chicago, IL. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence of membership requirements from www.rotarv.org reflecting 
that "[a] qualified candidate for Rotary club membership is an adult of good character and good 
business, professional, or community reputation." In addition, a candidate for membership must: 
1. Hold or ha[ve] held an executive position with discretionary authority in any 
worthy and recognized business or profession; 
2. Serve or ha[ve] served as a community leader; or 
3. Be a Rotary Foundation alumna or alumnus. 
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. 
The Rotary Club membership requirements of being an adult with a good character and reputation, 
and an executive position or community leadership do not represent outstanding achievement as 
judged by recognized national or international experts as required under 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In addition, an organization that boasts "more than 32,000 Rotary Clubs with a total membership 
exceeding 1.2 million men and women located in more than 200 countries and geographic 
territories" does not represent only that very small percentage at the top of the field. 
2 of NFHFI, stating that "[m]embership to the Federation has been strict in acce tin 
members that will not qualify with the organization's membership standard." However, r" 
failed to elaborate on what were the "strict" membership standards of NFHFI. We note that while 
the petitioner submitted photographs, with handwritten captions, of the beneficiary's participation at 
NFHFI's conference and background information from NFHFI's website, the petitioner failed to 
submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that membership with NFHFI requires outstanding 
achievement as judged by recognized national or international experts. In fact, the petitioner failed 
to submit any documentation reflecting membership requirements with NFHFI. 
Notwithstanding the above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) requires that the alien's 
membership be in an association in the field for which classification is sought. The record reflects 
that the beneficiary is seeking classification for this employment-based petition as a marketing and 
business executive in pharmaceuticals. The record is unclear as to the relationship between the 
beneficiary's field of marketin and business executive in pharmaceuticals and the field of hog 
farming. While we note that indicated in his letter that the beneficiary proved "to be a 
successful top animal healthcare industry leader," the record does not reflect any documentary 
evidence establishing that the beneficiary has any experience in animal healthcare. 
Nonetheless, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's membership with the Rotary 
Club of San Pedro and NFHFI require outstanding achievement by recognized national or 
international experts in the beneficiary's field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 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 jield.for which classzfication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The petitioner submitted the following documentary evidence for this criterion: 
1. An article, Neighborhood Drugstore Chain, in the Philippine Star on April 7, 
2003, b- 
2. Pictures of the beneficiary in the Swine Newsletter, August 2005 and December 
2006 issues; 
3. Pictures of the beneficiary in the Animal Husbandry & Agricultural Journal, June 
2005 issue; 
4. Appearance on the television program, Entrepinoy, on January 25,2003; and 
5. Appearance on the radio program, Business Cafe, on February 23,2003. 
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 qualifj as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. 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.' 
Regarding item 1, while the article features a picture and two quotes from the beneficiary, among 
quotes from other individuals, the article is not about the beneficiary but neighborhood drugstore 
chains. Similarly, items 2 and 3 only reflect pictures of the beneficiary representing his companies as 
sponsors at various events. The articles reflect that they are not primarily or principally "about" the 
petitioner. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published 
material be "about" the beneficiary relating to his work. Articles and publications that merely feature 
limited quotations and photographs are not sufficient to meet the eligibility requirements for this highly 
restrictive classification. 
Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner submitted information from \\u\z.~~ationse~~c\clo~cdia. 
conl regarding the circulation statistics of the Philippine Star. A review of this website reflects that 
it does not identify the source for the information and allows users to add information to the topics. 
There are no assurances about the reliability of the content from open, user-edited internet sites2. 
See, e.g., Lamilem Budusa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8"' Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we will 
not assign weight to information for which Encyclopedia of the Nations is the only cited source. In 
' Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Po~t, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
' See i.~~\~a.ti;_\cIopedi~i.c~)111 ~.~.CI~-~LII~~-OC~;~~I~ PlliI~l~p~n~,-hl_L I)IIA htnd, accessed on December 29, 2009, and 
incorporated into the record of proceeding reflecting that users can comment about the articles and add new information 
to the topics. 
addition, the petitioner submitted information from www.~hilstar.com claiming that "[tlhe 
Philippine Star is a daily broadsheet circulated throughout the Philippine archipelago." The 
petitioner failed to submit independent, corroborating evidence establishing that this publication, as well 
as the Swine Newsletter and Animal Husbandry & Agricultural Journal, are professional or major trade 
publications or major media. 
Regarding items 4 and 5, the plain language under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) also requires 
"[pJublished 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." As this criterion 
specifically requires the title, date, author and any necessary translation, appearance on television 
and radio shows do not qualify the petitioner under this criterion. Counsel's assertion that the 
evidence should be considered as "comparable" evidence to meet this criterion is not persuasive. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(4) permits the consideration of "comparable" evidence where 
the criteria are not "readily applicable" to the alien's occupation. In this case, the petitioner has 
submitted materials asserting that they meet this criterion. Therefore, the regulatory language 
precludes the consideration of comparable evidence for this criterion. Where an alien is simply 
unable to meet three of the regulatory criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's origi~zal scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major sign~ficance in the.field. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on several recommendation letters. We cite 
representative examples here: 
[The beneficiary] had also spearheaded programs and activities for various Medical 
Societies and associations like Philippine Society for Hospital Pharmacists headed by 
Society for Microbiology and Infectious Disease headed by 
and headed by Due to 
[the beneficiary's] extraordinary work with these groups, [the beneficiary] and the 
whole company was able to get certificates and recognition from their Officers and 
members. 
All companies [the beneficiary] handled had been exposed to special coverage (due to 
its exceptional growth and unique concepts) on national TV, major newspaper and 
magazines which his is always invited for an interview as special guest including some 
radio guesting [sic]. 
Page 8 
[The beneficiary] spearheaded he started it from scratch until he 
helped build 10 pharmaceutical retail franchise and distribution centers. The company 
earned P5 million in franchise fee for all the branches while the branch at Tafl Ave. 
Manila which was sold at P4.5 million gave the company income of P2.5 million just 
for this transaction. Truly, an extraordinary leadership capability of [the beneficiary] 
has driven the entire Management team including myself to perform and deliver 
business results desired. 
I have seen how [the beneficiary] had performed exceptionally well especially when he 
was tasked to handle Makati district, handling key accounts like Makati Medical 
Center, San Miguel Corporation, Coca-Cola Medical group, Fort Bonifacio General 
Hospital, Ospital ng Makati and other territorial medical clinics. [The beneficiary] with 
his team at Makati Medical Center achieved the highest selling hospital within the 
company and [the beneficiary's] team had consistently beaten all other pharmaceutical 
companies competing at Makati Medical Center. [The beneficiary's] group ranked top 
within the company and has dominated the market within his district against all the 
companies in the entire industry for a period of 4 to 5 years. Sales generated by Glaxo 
within the hospital reached millions every month. It was indeed record breaking high 
for [the beneficiary] making him a high rank District Sales Manager among peers and 
other competitors within his district. For this, he had received awards and recognition 
from our company. 
[The beneficiarvl handled training, of 40 sales staff with Managers and their Vice- 
- and r was s: impressed w.ith the 
comprehensive lecture and outstanding training of [the beneficiary]. They were able to 
learn new techniques that they can use in their daily interaction with their clients. The 
two-day training seminar was filled with overwhelming gratification from the audience 
and most especially . 
 Their Vice-President - 
is all praises and commented that the rate charged by [the beneficiary] is 
just worth the learning they have gained for 2 days. 
[The beneficiary] was responsible to customize the Business process and system of the 
company in order to adapt to the local market but still maintain the Medicine Shoppe 
International system. He spearheaded the concept of "Glocality" where the whole 
company "thinks Global but act Local." With [the beneficiary's] 15 years of successful 
Page 9 
experience with a British pharmaceutical company, this equipped him with an 
extraordinary in-depth knowledge of the whole local and international pharmaceutical 
industry. 
In this case, the recommendation letters are not sufficient to meet this regulatory criterion. The 
opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. The statutory requirement that an alien 
have "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond the 
alien's immediate 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. 5 204.5(h)(3). Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinion statements as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Commr. 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 of 
support from the beneficiary's personal contacts in 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. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the beneficiary's 
reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited 
by an alien in support of any immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence or original contributions of major significance that one would expect of an individual who 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
In this case, the petitioner failed to submit preexisting, independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance. While the letters highly praise the beneficiary and provide 
examples of his regular job duties of training employees, handling business accounts, and opening 
new businesses, they fail to establish that he has made contributions of major significance in his field 
beyond his employers. In evaluating the reference letters, they do not specifically identify how his 
contributions have influenced the field; rather, the letters reflect routine business accomplishments 
that are expected of any employee in the beneficiary's position. Letters from independent references 
who were previously aware of the beneficiary through his reputation and who have applied his work 
are far more persuasive than letters from independent references who were not previously aware of 
the beneficiary and are merely responding to a solicitation to review the beneficiary's curriculum 
vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely on this review. Ultimately, evidence in 
existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared 
especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or international 
acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. Vague, solicited 
letters from local colleagues or letters that do not specifically identify contributions or how those 
contributions have influenced the field are insufficient. Kazurian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9' 
Cir. 2009). 
Finally, counsel also cites to the beneficiary's "[n]umerous awards, and media attention given to [the 
beneficiary] [which] provide evidence of the contributions described in the expert letters." However, 
these factors have already been considered under 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iii). Here it should be 
emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate 
Page 10 
criteria exist for prizes and published material about the alien, USCIS clearly does not view these 
criteria as being interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that 
an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be 
meaningless. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the beneficiary has earned the admiration of 
those with whom he has worked, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's impact 
beyond his immediate employers. There is no evidence demonstrating that he has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate the extent 
of the beneficiary's influence on other marketing and business executives in pharmaceuticals 
nationally or internationally, or that the field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
Without extensive documentation showing that the beneficiary's work has been unusually 
influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original 
contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims the beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion based on the following positions: 
2004 - April 2007; 
2. liom August 2003 - 
January 2004; 
3. from 
December 2000 - May 2003; 
4. 
Corporation from July 1999 - November 2000; 
5. 
 . from October 1996 - June 
1999: and 
6. from January 1982 - 
September 1 996. 
Regarding Items 1, 2, 4, and 6, the petitioner submitted employment verification letters confirming 
the beneficiary's position and dates of employment. In addition, regarding Item 5, the petitioner 
submitted a Contract of Employment between the beneficiary and fi 
However, regarding Item 3, the petitioner failed to submit any documentation reflecting the 
beneficiary's employment with fi Therefore, we will not accord 
any evidentiary weight to the petitioner's claim of the beneficiary's position and employment with 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure CruF of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
At issue for this criterion are the position the beneficiary was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
As stated above, the petitioner submitted employment verification letters and an employment 
contract. The petitioner failed to submit documentation reflecting the beneficiary's positions or 
standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. While the petitioner submitted the previously mentioned 
recommendation letters which refer to the beneficiary's previous occupations and employers, they do 
not include detailed job responsibilities discussing the nature of the beneficiary's duties and 
significant accomplishments and the importance of his role to any of the companies' operations. For 
From a District Sales Manager position he soars to greater heights handling top executive 
positions like Chief Operating Officer, Executive Vice-President, Senior Vice-President 
and eventually President of a corporation. 
The petitioner relies on the beneficiary's former job titles and submitted documentation that only 
verified the beneficiary's employment but failed to extensively describe the beneficiary's specific roles 
at various entities. The petitioner failed to establish the nexus between the beneficiary's critical roles 
and the successes and accomplishments at any of the companies. Further, the petitioner has not 
submitted an organizational chart or other similar evidence showing the beneficiary's positions in 
relation to that of the other vice presidents, chief operating officers, and district sales managers at 
Nutriplus Laboratories Corporation, Harry Pound Company, PharmaQuick Corporation, Shoppe, 
and I. There is no evidence demonstrating how the beneficiary's roles 
differentiated him from the other vice presidents, chief operating officers, or district sales managers at 
any of these companies. In this case, the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not 
establish that the beneficiary was responsible for any of these businesses' success or standing to a 
degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signgcantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
On appeal, counsel claims the beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion by stating: 
[The beneficiary] earned 120,000 (Pesos) - 150,000 (Pesos) per month for numerous 
years while serving in an executive capacity. When he served as a consultant to 
business entrepreneurs with the prestigious Harry Pound Company, he earned 
approximately 10,000 (pesos) per daily training session he conducted. These salary and 
wage figures clearly demonstrate that [the beneficiary] earned wages significantly 
higher than others in his field. 
The previously mentioned employment verification letters reflect the following beneficiary's 
salaries: 
does not indicate the beneficiary's salary, and the petitioner did not submit any other documentation 
te that the petitioner submitted 
indicating that the beneficiary 
received an honorarium fee of 10,000 pesos for each day's lecture and training while employed by 
- The petitioner did not submit any documentation establishing that the 
beneficiary commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation 
to other speakers. While the beneficiary may have received 10,000 pesos for each daily speaking or 
lecturing engagement, the petitioner has offered no evidence that compares the beneficiary's fees for 
speaking and lecturing to other speakers and lecturers. 
Regarding items 1-3 above, the petitioner submitted information from the websites of the National 
Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC), Jobstreet.com, and Payscale. While the NWPC 
website provides the summary of daily and monthly minimum wage rates for various countries, 
including the Philippines, the website does not reflect wages for marketing and business executives 
in pharmaceuticals in the Philippines. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the 
petitioner to submit evidence showing that the beneficiary has commanded a high salary "in relation 
to others in the field." While the information reflects that the beneficiary's salaries were higher than 
the minimum wages of the citizens of the Philippines, the regulatory criterion requires the petitioner 
to establish that the beneficiary's salaries were higher than other marketing and business executives 
in pharmaceuticals in the Philippines and not to the minimum wages of the general public of the 
Philippines. 
Furthermore, Jobstreet.com indicates that marketing managers for chief executive officerslsenior 
vice presidentslassistant vice presidentslvice presidentsldirectors earn average monthly salaries of 
55,000 pesos with the minimum salary of 40,000 pesos and the maximum salary of 90,000 pesos. In 
addition, Payscale.com indicates the median hourly rate for managers of an organizational size of 
one to four employees is 275 pesos. The documentation submitted by the petitioner is insufficient in 
comparing the beneficiary's salaries to the salaries of others. The record reflects that the beneficiary 
is a marketing and business executive in pharmaceuticals. While the petitioner submitted 
documentation comparing the salaries of other marketing managers as a whole, the petitioner failed 
to submit documentation establishing the salaries of other marketing managers in the specific area of 
pharmaceuticals. As marketing managers comprise a vast array of various specialties, in this 
instance, we simply cannot accept documentation which reflects a broad range of areas that is not 
limited to a specific area such as pharmaceuticals. 
The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that the beneficiary's compensation was 
significantly high in relation to others in his field. There is no evidence establishing that the beneficiary 
has earned a level of compensation that places him among the highest paid marketing and business 
executives in his field of pharmaceuticals. We also note that the petitioner submitted two certificates of 
title reflecting the beneficiary's purchase of two properties. While the petitioner indicates that the 
beneficiary's purchases establish that his salaries have allowed him to make these purchases, we are not 
persuaded that the ability to purchase property, assets, or any other material reflect evidence that the 
beneficiary has commanded a high salary compared to others in his field as required for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the 
beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of 
the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by 
considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence 
in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the beneficiary as one of 
the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
While the beneficiary has earned the respect and admiration of the individuals offering 
recommendation letters, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has amassed a record of 
accomplishment which places him among that small percentage at the very top of his field. 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
beneficiary's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant 
to section 203(b)(l)(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. 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. 9 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.