dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

(b)(6)
DATE: FEB· 0 6 2013 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 
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 t? that office.· 
· If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not tile any motion 
directly with theAAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
_0u:-15r-
. £/Ro~nberg (Y-
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
/ 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 to classify the beneficiary as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business, 
pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). 
The director determined the petitioner had not established the beneficiary's sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the beneficiary'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 e·vidence 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. 
/ 
The priority date established by the petition filing date is May 14, 2012. On May 24, 2012, the director 
served the petitioner with a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the petitioner's response to the 
RFE, the director issued his decision on August 6, 2012. On appeal, the petitioner submits counsel's 
brief with no additional documentary evidence. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO upholds the 
director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established the beneficiary 's eligibility for 
the clas~ification 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) thiough (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 
(b)(6)
Page3 
(iii) the alie~'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) hav·e 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 indiyiduals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. /d.; 
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 ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)~(x). 
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. 1 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." /d. at 1121-22. 
/ -The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of ~he· 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 ifthe 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)." /d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)): 
Thus, Kazarian sets fo'rth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the .proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence .. /d.· 
1 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). 
(b)(6)
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Previously Approved 0-1 Nonimmigrant Visa 
While USCIS has approved at least one Q..: 1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of· the 
beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude the agency from denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant 
petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g.~ Q Data Consulting, 
Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F.' Supp. 2d 22 
(D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS 
spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigran.t petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some 
nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 
at 29-30; see· also Texas A&M Univ; v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 
(5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the 
original visa based on a reassessment of beneficiary's qualifications). 
The AAO is nbt required to approve applications or petitions · ~here eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may· have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
" Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. 
Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1'987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between 
a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved. the nonimmigrant 
petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision 
of a service center as the law is clear that an agency is not bound to follow an earlier determination as to 
a visa applicant where that initial deterinination was based on a misapplication of the law. Glara 
Fashion, Inc. v. Holder, 11 CIV. 889 P AE, 2012 WL 352309 *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012); Royal Siam v. 
Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139; 148 (1st Cir.2007); Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F.Supp.2d 172, 177 (D.Mass.2000)) 
(Dkt.lO); Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 44 F.Supp:2d 800, 803 (E.D.La.1999), aff'd, 
248 F.3dll39 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Evidence of the alien's participation; either i~Jdividually 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. 
The director determined that the petitioner submitted evidence sufficient to meet the plain language· 
requirements of this criterion. The AAO affirms the director's determination as it rel~tes to this 
criterion. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
PageS 
Evidence · of the alien's 'original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field~ 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the beneficiary's contributions (in the plural) in his field. These 
contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that the beneficiary's contributions are original. The evidence must 
. establish that the contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. 
The final requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a 
whole, rather than to a project or to an organization. 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 inAPWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of 
major significance connotes that the beneficiary's work has significantly impacted the field. The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided several testiinonialletters on behalf of the beneficiary. The director determined 
that the petitioner failed to meet the r~quirements of this criterion. 
Counsel's appellate brief asserts that the petitioner's "formulation and introduction of an unique, 
innovative and comprehensive underwriting process that evaluates a significant portion of the real estate 
assets . . . on an asset-by-asset basis to detennine whether current valuations are supportable and if the 
. projected cash flow is sustainable for the tenn of the investment. · No other such model exists in the 
market, and it provides a significant competitive advantage to [the petitioner]." That the petitioner's 
model provides an advantage to the petitioner over the rest of the field delineates how his contribution is 
restricted to a single employer and is not a significant contribution to the petitioner's field as a whole. 
Counsel also referenced several unpublished AAO .decisions. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that 
AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. The AAO ·may consider the reasoning within the 
unpublished decision; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of Jaw. 
Furthennore, the unpublished AAO decisions counsel provides date back to 1997, which are not viewed 
to be in accord with the two-step process outlined within the Kazarian decision that directly spoke to 
expert letters under the contributions criterion. 
Counsel further cited to Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) and Muni v. INS, 891 F. 
· Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1995). In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case Jaw of a United 
States circuit court, the AAO is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district 
court in cases arising within the same district See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). The 
reasoning underlying a district judge's decision · will be given due consideration when it is properiy 
before the AAO; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. /d. at 719. 
Counsel asserts the Buletini decision ."held that expert . statements respecting · the petitioner's 
(b)(6)
Page o 
contributions must be fully considered, even if the expert opinions came from people who knew or had 
worked with the beneficiary." Regarding the contributions criterion, the Buletilii court was referring to 
the director's failure to consider all the forms of evidence that the petitioner in that case ·submitted such 
as the book he authored, the petitioner's medical dictionary he authored, and the petitioner's study that 
appeared in.the largest circulation newspaper in the petitioner's home nation. Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 
1232-1233. These are forms of evidence that the Buletini court determined the director had faifed to 
consider; the court did not indicate that the director was required to discuss each and every piece of 
evidence within the record. · 
Regarding the Muni decision, counsel states the court "found that dismissal of expert letters without full 
consideration was 'clear evidence that (the fNS] did not adequately evaluate the facts b,efore it."' The 
Muni court st&ted that the appellate authority had "completely ignored" the affidavits. By contrast, in 
the matter currently before the AAO, the director discussed two of the testimonial letters, and a review 
of the letters listed as applicable to this criterion within the appellate brief does not reveal any letter or 
combination of letters that demonstrate the beneficiary's eligibility to meet the requirements of this 
criterion. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideratio'n to the petition, and has made adequate 
findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim the petitioner makes, · nor is it 
necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner presents. Morales v. INS, 208 F.3d 
323, 328 (1st Cir. 2000) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir.1992)); see also Pakasi v. 
Holder, 577 F.3d 44,48 (1st Cir. 2009); Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 
2009). . 
·' 
One letter that the director did not discuss claimed the beneficiary has made original and significant 
contributions to his field. This letter from Managing Principal of 
claimed the beneficiary is in the top one or two percent . in the commercial mortgage backed 
securities (CMBS) field. More specifically, asserts that, as part of the joint venture 
between his company and the beneficiary's employer, the beneficiary developed a valuation model for 
large pools of mortgages. did not, however, indicate that this valuation model has had a 
wide impact, or that it has been widely adopted in the beneficiary's field. That the beneficiary 
developed a successful model that serves as a useful tool for his employer and its partners falls short of 
demonstrating that the beneficiary has made an original contribution of major significance in his field. 
also. identified the beneficiary's assistance with his work on the as 
a significant contribution to the field; however, did not describe how the beneficiary's 
specific work, which may have been used as part of this impacted the beneficiary'.s field as 
a whole. He merely stated: "[The beneficiary's] assistance in our research and analysis of the 
underlying problems and their solutions was· instrumental to 9ur efforts." This effort on the 
beneficiary's part is insufficient to. satisfy this criterion's requirements that his work must not have only 
been original, but that it was also important enough that it changed or impacted hisfield in a significant 
manner. 
As discussed below, the AAO does not contest that the beneficiary ·has performed in a leading and 
critical role for the petitioner. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), by including both 
subparagraphs (v) and (vii), makes clear that performing in such a role is a distinct category of evidence 
(b)(6)
. ··.:. i . , · .. 
· .. 
from making contributions of majqr significance in the field. In order to meet the .contributions 
criterion, the petitioner must demonstrate the beneficiary's impact in the field as a whole. 
The remaining letters praise the beneficiary's unique talents and abilities. Talent and experience in 
one's field, however, are not necessarily indicative of original business contributions of major 
significance in the beneficiary's field. An alien must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to 
meet this regulatory criterion. Such letters do not provide specific examples of how the beneficiary's 
work has significantly impacted the field at large or otherwise constitutes original contributions of 
major significance. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998); Matter 
of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 218 (BIA 1985)). 
The Board clarified, however: "We riot only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and dqcurnentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. at 1332. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136'(BIA 1998). 
Letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify 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). In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated 
that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's] contributions iri 
the field'' was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
The opinions of those in the beneficiary's field are not without weight and have been considered above. 
While such letters can provide important details about the beneficiary's skills, they cannot form the 
· cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. · 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 (Comrn'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 
experts 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; 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" but rather is admissible only if it will assist the trier of fact to .understand the 
evidence or to determine a fact in issue). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. /d. at 795; see also Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). 
Th·us, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the beneficiary's reputation 
· are important considerations. While letters authored in support of the petition have probative value, 
they are mosi persuasive when supported by evidenee that already existed independently 'in the public 
sphere. Such independent evidence might include but is not limited to letters from independent industry 
experts with firsthand knowledge of the petitioner's impact in the field, media coverage, and citations to 
the petitioner's work. · 
(b)(6)
Page8 
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. · 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy through the submission 
of evidence. The first is that the beneficiary is an author of scholarly articles (in the plural) in his field 
in which he intends to engage once ·admitted to the United States as a .lawful permanent resident. 
. Scholarly articles generally report on original research or experimentation, involve scholarly 
investigations, contain substantial footnotes or bibliographies, and are peer reviewed. Additionally, 
while not required, scholarly articles are oftentimes intended for and written for learned persons in the 
field who possess a profound knowledge of the field. The second element is that the scholarly articles 
· appear in one of the following: a professional publication, a majo·r trade publication, or in a form of 
major media. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying each of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
The director determined that the beneficiary's articles.as a member of the staff of the 
were not scholarly and, thus, failed to meet the requirements of this criterion: On appeal, 
counsel relies on Gillen v. Chertoff, No .. 07-2148, 2008 WL 2779001, at *1, *3 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2008) 
for the proposition that "a work becomes scholarly by virtue of its author and its subject matter, not its 
intended audience." Regardless of whether the articles are scholarly rather than simply journalistic, 
however, they are not in the beneficiary's field of claimed expertise as required by the plain language of 
the regulation. As the beneficiary's field relates to mortgage backed securities, ·SO must his authored 
. works be related to this field. Unlike the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) does not allow for consideration of "allied" fields. The submitted articles 
relate to the field of architectural design rather than to the beneficiary's field claimed within the petition. 
As such, the submitted evidence cannot satisfy the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a· distinguished reputation.· 
This criterion anticipates that 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 beneficiary's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The 
beneficiary's performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for organizations or 
establishments as a whole. The petitioner must demonstrate that the organiz!ltions or establishments (in 
the plural) have a distinguished reputation. While neither the regulation nor precedent speak to what 
constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines distinguished as, 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
"marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence." 3 Dictionaries are not of themselves evidence, but 
they may be referred to as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 
304, 306 (1893). Therefore, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the organizations or 
establishments claimed under this criterion are marked by eminence, distinction, excellence, or an 
equivalent reputation. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the 
plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The AAO withdraws the director's conclusion that the beneficiary did not perform in a leading or a 
critical role for the petitioner. While the requirement remains that such a role must be performed for an 
organization as a whole, the testimonial letters submitted on behalf of the beneficiary sufficientlv 
demonstrate that although the beneficiary's roles were executed from subsidiary entities within 
the impact · of his work sufficiently benefitted the organization as a 
whole to the extent that he has satisfied a portion of this criterion's requirement. 
Furthermore, while counsel correctly noted that the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R: 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence of performing in "a" leading or critical role, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that the beneficiary performed such a role for "organizations or establishments" 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). 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 *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 
2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) 
(upholding an interpretation thafthe 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). As the appeal only contests the director's determination relating to and 
does not put forth any additional organizations or establishments in which the beneficiary purportedly 
performed in a leading or a critical role, the evidence cannot satisfy the requirements of this criterion. 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
3 See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished, accessed on January 29, 2013, a copy of which 
is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
( 
(b)(6)
·page 10 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires the petitioner to submit 
evidence of a "high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in. 
the field." Average salary information for those performing work in a related but distinct occupation 
with different responsibilities is not a proper basis for comparison. The petitioner must submit 
documentary evidence of the earnings of those in his occupation performing similar work at ·the top 
level of the field.4 The petitioner must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that the 
beneficiary 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. Comm'r 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). · 
The petitioner provided the ·beneficiary's 2011 Form W-2s, a website printout of the Foreign Labor 
Certification (FLC} Data Center's Online Wage Librarv. a report from Pay Governance, and a letter 
from Director of Human Resources at rhe director determined that the petitioner 
failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
·According to the May 4, 2012, letter from in 2011 the beneficiary received the following 
compensation: a base salary of $184,000; a cash bonus of$100,000; additional cash compensation of 
more than $43,500; and a long-term award liquidation of more than $410,000. also indicated 
· that the position the beneficiary occupied is Vice President, . Real Estate Financial Investment Analysis 
and Research. · 
Counsel's appellate brief identifies two purported errors on the director's part. The first is that the 
director erred by not considering remuneration the beneficiary received beyond his base salary, and the 
second is that the director went beyond· the plain regulatory language requiring the beneficiary's salary 
or remuneration to be compared with others in the beneficiary's field. 
Counsel's position is correct that the regulatory language, which states, "or other significantly high 
remuneration for services," allows USCIS to consider forms of remuneration beyond the-beneficiary's 
base salary. The director limited his discussion to the beneficiary's base salary when discussing the 
evidence from the FLC, as the wage an(llysis from the FLC focuses on wages and salaries and does not 
4 While the AAO acknowledges that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, the AAO notes· that in 
Racine v. INS, 1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated, "(T]he plain reading of the 
statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the 
hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the 
NHL. This interpretation is consistent with ... the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), ·and the 
discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99." · 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
include other forms of remuneration. Consequently, the inclusion of the beneficiary's additional 
remuneration would not have been a proper comparison. Furthermore, the FLC Data Center's Online . . 
Wage· Library relies on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics 
(OES) wage estimates. 5 The OES program collects data -on wage and salary workers in nonfarm 
establishments in order to produce employment and wage estimates for about 800 occupations. The 
BLS produces occupational employment and wage estimates for over 450 industry classifications at the 
national level. The employment data are benchmarked to average employment levels.6 As the 
regulation requires "a high salary," average· salary. information is not a proper basis for comparison. 
Consequently, the FLC data is not sufficient evidence to. demonstrate what constitutes a "high salary" in 
any field. Thus, as it ~elates to the director's discussion of the FLC data, he did not commit any error by 
only comparing the beneficiary's base salary to such data. 
/ 
Regarding the Pay Governance report, the director did not limit his determination to the beneficiary's 
base pay. · Rather the director concluded that the report compared the beneficiary's salary and 
remuneration to the·"median c~mpensation" of others. A review of the report reveals that the report's 
compensation figures are based on median compensation data; however, median wage statistics do not 
meet the requirement of commanding a high .salary i!! relation to others in the field. Therefore, the 
AAO concludes that the director did not commit an error in determining the evidence on record is 
insufficient to meet the regulatory requirements. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. . ' 
C. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international ac:claim and is one of the small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated that the 
beneficiary has attained (I) 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" and (2) "that the alien has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the 
5 http://www.flcdatacenter.com/faq.aspx, accessed on Janua·ry 29, 2013, a copy of which is incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. . 
6 http:/Jwww.bls.gqv/oe~~s emp.htm#estimates; accessed on January 29, 2013, a copy of which is incorporated 
into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
~ . . ~ 
Page 12 
field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a .level of expertise consistent with the small 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not 
explain that conclusion in a final merits determination. 7 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
evidence the petitioner submitted on behalf of the beneficiary has failed to satisfy the antecedent 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. at 1122. · 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the peti,tion 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of 
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)). Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). In any futur~ proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination 
as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(ii). See also section 103(a)(l) of 
the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March I, 2003); 8 CF.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.l(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).