dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce oofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
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 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
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. 5 103.5 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
! -Perry Rhew 
& Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, 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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as 
an alien of extraordinary ability in business. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established 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. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(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. § 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 July 27, 2007, seeks to classif the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as Chairman of the Board of Directors for h On appeal, counsel argues: 
We submit that it is more difficult for beneficiaries who have extraordinary abilities in 
Business to meet the limited criteria set for adjudication of the petitions submitted on 
their behalf. 
We submit, that up to five of the ten criteria of adjudication are practically and 
unreasonably more difficult to satisfactorily respond to for business persons of 
extraordinary abilities; and particularly for those who are categorized as 'Chairman' of 
public corporations. We ask that his be given weight in considering this appeal. 
As previously cited, the statute enumerates five categories in which an alien can establish 
extraordinary ability; sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. 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 eligibility for the beneficiary 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. 5 
204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which 
classiJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
In support of the appeal, counsel states that the petitioner's membership in the Canadian Association 
of Management Consultants (CMC) is evidence of eligibility in this criterion.' The petitioner also 
submitted the bylaws for the Institute of Certified Management Consultants of British Columbia. 
Regular members must meet the following criteria: 
1. Have a university degree (from a recognized institution) or if the applicant passed 
the CMC; 
2. Provide original transcripts of the highest degreeldesignation with their application; 
1 
Although counsel additionally argues that the petitioner's "designation" satisfies the prize or award criterion 
under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), passing tests or reaching certain levels of certification in 
one's field is not considered a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. 
3. Be primarily engaged in the practice of management consulting (in British 
Columbia); 
4. Have completed and filed with the institute office an application in the prescribed 
form; 
5. Agree to abide by the code of professional conduct and comply with these bylaws; 
6. Have successfully undertaken and completed a course of study and examination to 
obtain the CMC designation as prescribed by the institute within a period of time 
established by council; 
7. Have been primarily engaged in management consulting for at least three years; 
8. Have written and passed qualifylng examinations established on a national basis by 
CMC; 
9. Submit additional documentation as may be prescribed from time to time by 
council; and 
10. Pay the requisite membership and other fees as established fi-om time by time by 
council. 
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 requirements listed above which include possession of a university degree, at least three years of 
management consulting, successful completion of a course of study, and passing of qualifjllng 
examinations are not outstanding achievements. Other than meeting the minimum qualifjllng 
standards, outstanding achievement is not a prerequisite for membership in CMC. The petitioner has 
failed to establish how CMC's membership requirements reflect outstanding achievement as judged 
by national or international experts in the field as an essential condition for admission to CMC. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets 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 alliedfield of specialization for which classification is 
sought. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from fi stating "[The 
beneficiary] served as an examiner in his area of expertise on three occasions in the late 1970s and 
early 1980s." 
 The director questioned the beneficiary's qualification as an examiner during this 
time period because the beneficiary received his CMC designation in 1978. 
 According to a 
document submitted by the petitioner, which fails to indicate the document's source or authority, a 
member of a peer panel for the oral exam must "have at least five years of recent experience as a 
Page 5 
CMC." The director determined that since the beneficiary only received CMC designation in 1978, 
the beneficiary was not qualified to be an examiner in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In response to 
the director's findings, counsel contends: 
In fact, as noted by 
 [the beneficiary] was one of the founding members of the 
CMC and a member of an affiliated institute charged with examining candidates. The 
CMC affiliated institute was founded around 1977. 
 It therefore would have been 
impossible for any early member who was selected as examiner in 1978 through 1982 
to have had 5 years experience as a CMC. In fact examiners in those early days were 
selected based on their professional eminence as determined by the board of directors 
of the CMC. It was not until perhaps ten years later that the currently existing 
qualifications were embodied in policy. However, it should not be concluded that the 
quality of examiners was in any way compromised in the early years of CAMC. 
Arguably, CMC went to extreme lengths at that time to ensure that the standard of 
selection of examiners was high. 
The assertions made by counsel are not supported by the documentary evidence contained in the 
record. Counsel's claims that "examiners in those early days were selected based on their 
professional eminence" and "perhaps ten years later that the currently existing qualifications were 
embodied in policy" are not based on any information contained in letter and are 
unsupported by documentary evidence. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the 
assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
503, 506 (BIA 1980). The petitioner has failed to satisfactorily rectify the discrepancy raised by the 
director. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not 
suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Notwithstanding, the director also determined that the petitioner failed to establish the sustained 
national or international acclaim that is required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. According to 
the letter from the beneficiary served as an examiner on three occasions from the late 
1970s to the early 1980s. The director determined that since that beneficiary has not served as an 
examiner for the past 25 years, the petitioner failed to establish the requisite sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
Although counsel agrees that "no evidence was submitted" to demonstrate that the beneficiary has 
participated as a judge since the early 1980s, he contends that the beneficiary acted as a judge by 
evaluating and reviewing the work of junior partners. We are not persuaded by this argument and 
agree with the findings of the director in this criterion. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
provides that "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that 
the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the beneficiary's participation as a judge must be 
Page 6 
evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to hlfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5@)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top 
of the alien's field of endeavor. 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. 5 
204.5(h)(2). See also Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009)( Internal review of student 
work is not indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim and, thus, cannot serve to 
meet this criterion). We find the routine duties performed by the beneficiary in judging the work of 
subordinate partners insufficient to meet this criterion and inconsistent with the level of acclaim 
required for ths highly restrictive classification. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, or business-related 
contributions of a major significance in the field. 
In support of the appeal, counsel states: 
Evidence was submitted with respect to two unique business management techniques 
and methodologies, which are both original business-related contributions of the 
Beneficiary and arguably represent "major significance in the field." These have been 
exclusively developed by the beneficiary and have been employed by major 
corporations and business consultancies. These are: 
1. The integrated Directional-Strategic-Tactical Planning methodology, 
and 
2. The Decision Matrix technique and methodology 
The evidence submitted with respect to each of these was limited to include only 
example summary formats as it was the option of counsel that to forward the bulk of 
the evidence representing detailed descriptions of the methodologies and documents 
that would evidence of their employment would be overwhelming. However, the 
submission noted the availability of these added materials for inspection, if required, 
upon request. 
The adjudicator only mentions the Decision Matrix methodology in his comments. No 
mention is made of the integrated Directional-Strategic-Tactical Planning methodology 
although he seems to have come to the conclusion that somehow the Decision Matrix 
technique is used to "create directional plans" which is not the case. 
In response to a request for evidence from the director, counsel submitted a letter, dated August 20, 
2008, stating: 
propagating and marketing his business management theories and techniques, 
particularly the "decision matrix" methodology and "directional planning." These ideas 
were taken up in some instances by the partnership's own clients and in other cases by 
the client's of other consulting firms to which [the beneficiary] had licensed his 
copyrighted material. 
Birkman International is a prominent business consulting firm headquartered in 
Houston, Texas that facilitates team building, executive coaching, leadership 
development, career management and interpersonal conflict resolution. In 1989 
Birkrnan adopted [the beneficiary's] decision matrix methodology and offered it as one 
of its tools for improving corporate performance. A copy of the Birkman "Decision 
Matrix" brochure is attached for your review (Attachment E). 
An example of how utilized [the beneficiary's] decision matrix methodology 
is the High Island 24L Pilot Project of Vastar Petroleum (Conoco Phillips), where 
Birkrnan was called upon to help improve interaction and conflict resolution between 
two corporate departments. Though [the beneficiary] is not cited by name, his 
methodology and terminology are employed throughout. An illustrative extract from 
the High Island report is attached (Attachment E). Similarly, [the beneficiary's] 
"directional planning" concepts and methodologies were adopted extensively as a 
means of facilitating organizational change. Directional plans were developed by 
major high profile organizations as diverse as the Workers' Compensation Board of 
Alberta and Cominco Engineering Services, Ltd. Illustrative extracts from those 
reports are also attached (Attachment E). The full texts of all reports are available for 
inspection if required. 
In support of the letter, counsel submitted the following: 
1. Decision Matrix by - 
2. A portion of the Hi& Island 24L Pilot Proiect by -2.: 
3. page from the ~irectional Plan from d 
4. Directional Plan from Workers' Compensation Board in Alberta, Canada. 
The "Decision Matrix," as indicated by the director, reflects a copyright from the v 
demonstrating the beneficiary's involvement in this methodology. The "High Island 
24L Pilot Project" shows that it used the "Decision Matrix" in section five. The fact that- 
utilized the "Decision Matrix" does not establish that this was a contribution of 
major significance in the field of business. Furthermore, no other documentary evidence was 
submitted establishing the major significance of the "Decision Matrix." 
Regarding the directional plan, the page from 
 indicates the 
individuals who prepared and accepted the document. 
 The document from the Workers' 
Compensation Board provides a directional plan from a project team. While counsel contends that 
the "directional planning" concepts and methodologies were adopted extensively as a means of 
facilitating organizational change" in the "Directional Plan" from Cominco Engineering Services, 
Ltd. and Workers' Compensation Board, there is nothing in the documents that establishes the 
beneficiary's involvement in these projects. In fact, nothing was submitted describing what is the 
"unique business management technique," as argued by counsel. Instead, counsel only submits two 
directional plans, which purportedly utilized the beneficiary's concepts. Without documentary 
evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. at 506. 
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. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. Without extensive documentation showing that the 
beneficiary's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed, or widely accepted 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 director found in his decision that the beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
We concur with the director's finding. As such, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary 
meets this single criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
In support of the appeal, counsel states: 
In addition to the options granted as compensation for his services during his tenure as 
Chairman, the beneficiary has received significant annual cash compensation, which in 
2007 amounted to $94,543 as reported in the beneficiary's tax return for that year. 
However, by far the principal compensation for his services was designed to be the 
increasing present and future value of his option grants. 
In his commentary the adjudicator has focused predominantly on the cash compensation 
element, rather than on the valuation of the option grants received by the beneficiary. In 
this regard, the adjudicator affirms his understanding that the beneficiary receives his cash 
compensation from the petitioner through Corpus Investments, Inc., a private corporation 
owned by him. The adjudicator notes that because Corpus Investments is "a private 
holding company that manages investments in a wide range of enterprises", he is uncertain 
as to "how much of the income received fiom Corpus Invesments can be attributed to the 
beneficiary's salary from the petitioner." 
After conferring with [the beneficiary], we confirm that all of the income reported on 
Schedule E of his person 2007 tax return, that being $94,543, was received fiom 
QuoteMedia Inc. We also enclose a previously submitted letter fiom QuoteMedia Inc., 
dated March 20,2007 (Attachment A), which notes on the second page that "as of January 
1, 2007, [the beneficiary's] annual cash compensation component has been increased to 
$94,000." 
In order to demonstrate that the beneficiary commanded a high salary, the petitioner must show that 
the salary was high compared to others in this same field. The only evidence showing the 
beneficiary's previous salaries was a letter from the petitioner, dated March 20, 2007, which was 
submitted in support of the appeal stating: 
Previously [the beneficiary] had served jointly as Chairman of . and as 
President of Marketing Services Inc. and his annual income was approximately 
$450,000 (see attached letters). 
There were no attached letters as indicated in the petitioner's letter. No other documentary evidence 
was submitted establishing the beneficiary's previous salaries were high compared to others in his 
field. 
Regarding the beneficiary's current salary, the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's 2007 Form 1040, 
Schedule E where the beneficiary indicated that he earned $94,000 from an S corporation, Corpus 
Investments, Inc. The director questioned how much income reported by Corpus Investments, Inc. was 
from the petitioner. The letter from the petitioner (Attachment A from counsel) stated that the 
beneficiary's cash compensation was $94,000 for 2007. The letter from the petitioner supports the 
reported income on the Schedule E from the beneficiary; and therefore, we accept that the beneficiary's 
cash compensation fiom the petitioner was around $94,000 for 2007. 
As it relates to counsel's argument regarding stock received by the beneficiary from the petitioner in 
support of the appeal, counsel states: 
The adjudicator acknowledges that the independent Portfolio Valuation Report "places 
the value of the beneficiary's shares of common stock and common stock purchase 
warrants at $4.25 million as of June 30, 2008." He also acknowledges that the 
valuation established in that report has not (for valid reasons clearly discussed in the 
report) been based on the day to day reported trading price of the stock, "but rather 
upon valuation models and under the assumption that the purchase of the beneficiary's 
stock is taking place as part of purchase of the petitioner by another corporation". For 
this reason he considers the valuation, determined by the independent valuator as 
expressed in the "Portfolio Valuation Report", to be "speculative" and presumably 
therefore not a valid reflection of 'real' value. 
It is important to understand, as stated in the valuation report (at page 5), that the 
trading price of QuoteMedia's stock is irrelevant as an indication of the company's 
value. Early on QuoteMedia decided not to expend any monies or efforts to build a 
market audience for the company's stock, as attested to by the traditional insignificant 
day to day volume of trades. In accordance with that decision, the company has 
intentionally been operated 'below the radar'; in many ways as if it was a private rather 
than publicly owned corporation. It has, in fact, been decided that no marketing of the 
company's stock is to be undertaken until significant product market share is in sight - 
which is expected in the next 2 to 3 years. As a consequence, the past or present day- 
to-day trading price of QuoteMedia's stock in no way bears a connection to or reflects 
the true value of the company in terms of the market worth of its net assets or the fair 
present value of its revenue or profit potential. 
The "Portfolio Valuation Report," which was prepared by VENU Capital Corporation, LLC, states: 
Our approach to establishing our valuation assessment has been to cross-validate the 
results derived from two separate valuation methods. Both models relied on some 
similar as well as some unique data inputs to generate value findings. The first set of 
valuation results discussed in this report are generated from employing standard 
present-valued projected earnings per sharehahe per share calculation methodologies. 
These calculation results were then cross-validated with results generated utilizing the 
Black-Scholes Valuation Model, which is the methodology required to be employed, 
under the provisions of FAS No. 123R, in publicly issued financial reports. The results 
from employing both of these models are present later in this document. 
The Black-Scholes Models scales values based on a number of reasonably esoteric but 
important factors such as: assumed riskless rate of return, binomial movement 
expectations, annualized standard deviation of earnings patterns, expected value 
volatility, etc. It serves to narrow and enhance the reliability of the range of projected 
values by factoring measures of momentum and certaintylrisk into its expectations. 
Based on our analyses of all of the factors affecting the value of the holdings of [the 
beneficiary] of the common stock or common stock purchase warrants in QuoteMedia 
Inc., as at June 30, 2008, and based upon the methodologies employed by us in 
estimating value, it is our opinion that the fair market value of those holdings, if offered 
for sale as 'holdings in total', is: $4,250,000. 
The "Portfolio Valuation Report" reflects 550,000 common shares and 1,352,803 common stock 
purchase warrants in QuoteMedia. As stated above, the report utilized present-valued projected 
earnings per sharelvalue per share calculation methodologies. In determining the low valuation, the 
report used the weighted average of discounted present value of $1.72, which is the projected value 
per share of $0.20 for 2008, $1.05 for 2009, $3.38 for 2010, and $5.60 for 201 1. In determining the 
high valuation, the report used the weighted average of discounted present value of $3.81, which is 
the projected value per share of $0.20 for 2008, $1.75 for 2009, $4.55 for 2010, and $8.75 for 201 1. 
The director concluded in his decision that since the "Portfolio Valuation Report" was not based on 
actual share prices, the beneficiary's stock value of $4.25 million was speculative and could not be 
considered for this criterion. In this instance, we find the portfolio valuation reports, along with 
other similar reports, compensation surveys and evidence of the petitioner's cash salary to be 
credible in establishing that the petitioner commands significantly high remuneration for services. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has established that he meets only two of the regulatory criteria, three of 
which are required to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 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 sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualifL as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit 
comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). Counsel 
argues: 
[The beneficiary] has demonstrated his eminence in many ways in addition to those 
called for by the formal criteria. We ask that particular attention be paid to the esteem 
signaled b; the community within which heA lives such as his be& sought by 
P~ 
of Arizona State University, to participate in t at 
organization's Technopolis Program, where he acts a volunteer mentor and advisor to 
selected emerging enterprises. We also ask that his community involvements as a 
volunteer mentor and advisor to selected emerging enterprises. We also ask that his 
community involvements as a volunteer advisor to charities and community groups 
such as the Foothills Community Foundation be given weight. Evidence supporting 
these assertions has been provided with earlier filings. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
 of Entrepreneurial Services, of 
Arizona State University, stating: 
In earl 2005, at the suggestion of 
 I asked [the beneficiary],- 
of 
 to volunteer his time and talents in our Mentoring Program. The 
ASU Technopolis Mentoring Program provides entrepreneurs the necessary support 
elements for successful growth. We recruit as our mentor coaches successhl senior 
executives and entrepreneurs who possess "been there, and done that" experience that is 
invaluable to our client entrepreneurs. [The beneficiary] agreed to my invitation and is 
participating in this program with energy and distinction; and with great effect. 
Through ASU Technopolis [the beneficiary] is making a major contribution to the 
further development of Arizona as a respected technology center and to the growth and 
success of this states [sic] business community. We are most grateful for his continuing 
involvement. 
We recognize the beneficiary's volunteering in a mentoring program at Arizona State University as 
both honorable and admirable. However, there is no evidence showing that the beneficiary's 
participation or involvement in the mentoring program is indicative of sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field or is in any way on a level comparable to the 
regulatory requirements. 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the documentation the petitioner requests evaluation 
of as comparable evidence constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the beneficiary's field. Nevertheless, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the 
ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language 
precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that 
eligibility for visa preference in the beneficiary's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria 
specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In fact, the petitioner has submitted evidence 
specifically addressing five of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply 
unable to meet three of these criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(4) 
does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Finally, counsel requests that: 
Special consideration should be given to the historical fact that the Beneficiary has 
previously been granted an 0-1 visa, after being evaluated against the same criteria 
employed in evaluating the evidence in this petition. 
While USCIS has approved an 0-1 nonimrnigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary, that 
prior approval does not preclude USCIS fiom denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, 
if similarly phrased standard. It must be noted that many I- 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 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonirnmigrant 
petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see 
also Texas AdiM Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding 
that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS fiom denying an extension of the original visa based on 
a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where 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. 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. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1 988). 
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 has approved a nonirnmigrant 
petition on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision 
of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct 51 (2001). 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished hmself 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 the national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.