dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC cow 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 07 267 54210 Af'R 0 7 2010 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
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. 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $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). 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification 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 11 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in business.' The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) and that her age at the time of filing should allow for the submission of comparable 
evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). The petitioner's age at the time of filing, however, does 
not relieve her from demonstrating that she meets the applicable statutory and regulatory 
requirements for this classification. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101'' Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only 
1 At the time she filed the petition, the petitioner indicated that she was in the United States as an F-1 nonimmigrant 
student. 
to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Id. and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten criteria. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification, Kuzuriun v. USCIS, 2010 WL 725317 (9th Cir. March 4, 2010). 
Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
Page 4 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary ~riterion.~ With respect to the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate 
concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at *6 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim 
and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5@)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. fj 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at *3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying 
under three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service 
Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo 
review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a 
one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Dor v. INS, 891 
F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on August 9, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an economic and political consultant. The petitioner states: 
I have recently joined the Centennial Group Inc. - consulting firm that mission is 
concentrated on policy and strategic advisory and I am involved in the leadership issues in 
the Emerging Markets Forum - their non profit organization that includes 57 countries and 
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. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
its goal is to bring together high-level government and corporate leaders form around the 
world for dialogue on key economic, financial and social issues. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 
204.5(h)(3).~ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate of acknowledgement from the Electoral Campaign 
Headquarters of Vice-Marshal of the Seym of the Republic of Poland expressing "heartfelt 
acknowledgments for [the petitioner] for her personal commitment and contribution during the 
campaign for elections to the Polish Seym A.D. 2001 ." The petitioner also submitted an October 8, 
2001 certificate of thanks from the Democratic Left Alliance and the Labor Union expressing 
appreciation for her "contribution to the electoral campaign of the Alliance of the Democratic Left 
and the Labor Union." There is no evidence showing that these certificates equate to nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence, rather than simply acknowledgments of 
the petitioner's participation in the electoral campaign. The record does not include information 
from the presenting organizations explaining the significance of these certificates, specifying the 
nature of the petitioner's contribution, or indicating the number of other recipients. The plain 
language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that petitioner's 
awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is her burden to 
establish every element of this criterion. In this instance, there is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating that the preceding certificates are recognized beyond the presenting organizations and 
therefore commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
in the field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classijkation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
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 petitioner submitted a January 12,2005 letter from the president of the HL7 Society in Warsaw, 
Poland stating that she is a "member of the Audit Commission of the Society." The petitioner also 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
submitted a resume stating that she is a member of the Public Administration Theory Association 
(PATA). In a statement submitted in response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner 
asserts that she is "a member of the Global Women's Network (GWN)." The record, however, does 
not include evidence of the petitioner's membership in the PATA or the GWN. The petitioner's 
assertion that she is GWN member and the self-serving claim in her resume that she is a PATA 
member are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof for this regulatory criterion. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is 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 Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). A petition must be filed with 
any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does 
not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary 
evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. The petitioner has not 
established that evidence of her PATA and GWN memberships do not exist or cannot be obtained. 
Further, her resume and the statement submitted in response to the director's request for evidence do 
not equate to secondary evidence or affidavits. 
Nevertheless, there is no evidence (such as membership rules or bylaws) showing that the HL7 
Society, the PATA, and the GWN require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not established that she 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 jeld for which classiJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
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 qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level fiom 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.4 
The petitioner submitted a brief article about her and another student in the September 26, 2005 
issue of Forum, a Grand Valley State University newsletter, entitled "First ELS [English Language 
Systems] graduates enroll at Grand Valley," but the author of this material was not identified as 
required by the plain language of this criterion. Moreover, there is no evidence (such as circulation 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, 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. 
Page 7 
statistics) showing that this university newsletter qualifies as a professional or major trade publication 
or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted articles in Liderzy that were accompanied by photographs of her posing 
with others, but it appears that these articles were authored by her rather than written about her. In 
response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an article and an 
accompanying photograph in Rzeczpospolita entitled "The Left announces victory," but the author of 
the material was not identified. The article in Rzeczpospolita and some of the articles in Liderzy 
were unaccompanied by English language translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
8 103.2(b)(3) and by the plain language of this criterion. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), any 
document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English 
language translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. While 
the accompanying photograph in Rzeczpospolita shows the petitioner in a crowd of onlookers 
standing behind a speaker at a podium, the article was not about her. The plain language of this 
regulatory criterion requires "[p]ublished material about the alien in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media" including "the title, date, and author of the material." The published 
photographs showing the petitioner in a crowd of onlookers or posing with various officials do not meet 
these requirements. Finally, there is no evidence showing that Rzeczpospolita or Liderzy qualify as 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
f the Republic of Poland, stating: 
I declare that [the petitioner] prepared internal documentation and economic-political 
analyses during the Parliamentary elections in Poland in 2001 for the candidates for the Head 
of the Seym (the House of Representatives) of the Republic of Poland and for the Ministry of 
Administration. Moreover, she has written and prepared materials for internal use on the 
same topics for my office. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that "preparing documentation to the sitting president is clearly an 
achievement that shows [the petitioner] has original business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." The record, however, does not include copies of the documentation and 
analyses prepared by the petitioner. As stated previously, going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meetin the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Morover, - letter does not 
provide specific examples of how the petitioner's original work significantly influenced or impacted 
her field. 
The petitioner submitted additional letters of support from her educators, employers, community 
contacts, and professional collea es discussin her activities in the field and her educational 
background. The brief letter from and the other letters of support do not specify 
exactly what the petitioner's original contributions in the economic and political arenas have been, 
nor is there an explanation indicatin how any such contributions were of major significance in those 
fields. For example, the letter from School of Public and 
Nonprofit Administration, Grand Valley State University (GVSU), states: 
[The petitioner] is one of several students from Poland who have earned the MPA [Master's 
of Public Administration] at GVSU and she has more than upheld the tradition of excellence 
that they have established here. She came to our school with a strong education and 
experiential background and distinguished herself by working hard at improving her English 
language skills and applying them to advanced work in Public Administration. From August 
2005 to May 2006, [the petitioner] served as a research assistant for the school and did an 
excellent job. She completed her degree on schedule, with very good grades, and has a 
bright future in public policy and administration, or any other related field. 
states that the petitioner "has a bright future," but his letter does not provide specific 
examples of how the petitioner's original work has significantly influenced the field of public policy 
and administration, or any other field. It is not enough to show promise and to have others attest to 
one's talent. An alien must have demonstrably impacted her field in order to meet this regulatory 
criterion. 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 evidence indicates that the petitioner 
was involved in Polish election campaigns and various community events, the submitted 
documentation does not establish that she has made original scientific contributions of "major 
significance" in her field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. For 
example, the record does not indicate the extent to which her work has impacted others in her field 
nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field has significantly changed as a result of 
her work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
regulatory criterion. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Curon 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 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 795-796. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major 
significance that one would expect of an individual who has sustained national or international 
acclaim. Without evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly 
acclaimed throughout her field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major 
significance, we cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her authors hi^ of articles in Liderzv and Promess for Poland. - 
The betitioner also submitted a letter from of Progress jor Poland, 
describing his online publication as a local Polish media source in Chicago. The petitioner's initial 
submission also included an English language translation of a January 12, 2005 letter from- 
= Subeditor of Liderzy, stating: "Liderzy is a free monthly magazine of national circulation, 
reaching such circles as the parliament, the Senate and business elite?' The record, however, does 
not include a copy of original letter in Polish. Further, the self-serving claim hom the 
subeditor of Liderzy does not establish that his magazine has national circulation or otherwise 
qualifies as a form of "major" media. There is no evidence (such as objective circulation information 
horn an independent source) showing the distribution of Liderzy and Progress for Poland relative to 
national media in Poland or the United States to demonstrate that the submitted articles were published 
in professional or major trade publications or some other form of major media. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected her. 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. 
The English language translation of the January 12,2005 letter from states that 
the petitioner served "as Marketing Director and Editor in the issues concerning Polish Community 
Abroad." The petitioner also submitted a June 25, 2007 letter fromtating that the 
petitioner "was employed by Liderzy magazine from 2002 to 2005 as a Marketing Director." Page 3 
of several issues of Liderzy submitted by the petitioner identify her as the magazine's Marketing 
Director, which appears to be a leading role. The record, however, does not include evidence 
showing that this magazine has a distinguished reputation when compared to other Polish media. 
The letter from states: "[The petitioner] started the 
cooperation wit ng her knowledge and experience about 
Polish communi in Washington, DC, covering political, 
sociological and cultural issues in our publication." There is no evidence demonstrating that the 
Progress for Poland has a distinguished reputation when compared to other United States media. 
Moreover, there is no evidence showing that her editorial position was leading or critical to the 
publication. For instance, there is no organizational chart or other evidence documenting how the 
petitioner fits within the general hierarchy of Progress for Poland's management. The petitioner's 
Page 10 
evidence does not demonstrate how her editorial position differentiated her from the other editors and 
writers, let alone the publication's senior management. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that that the petitioner is an "active member of Global Women's Network 
and participates actively" in the organization, but there is no letter of support or credential from the 
GWN verifying her membership. Counsel and the petitioner's assertions that she is GWN member 
are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof for this regulatory criterion. As previously discussed, 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. A petition must be 
filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence 
or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that 
primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence 
and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on 
affidavits. The petitioner has not established that evidence of her GWN membership does not exist 
or cannot be obtained. Further, her statement submitted in response to the director's request for 
evidence does not equate to secondary evidence or an affidavit. Moreover, there is no evidence 
showing that the GWN has a distinguished reputation or that the petitioner's role for organization 
was leading or critical. 
The petitioner's appellate submission includes an April 26, 2009 letter of support from- 
stating that the petitioner "led a public relations 
company that provided insight into international leadership areas. She has assisted on successful 
political campaigns at the local and national level both in Europe and in the u.s."- 
letter does not specifically identify the public relations company led by the petitioner or her position 
within the company. The opinions expressed by do not establish that the unidentified 
company has a distinguished reputation or that the petitioner was responsible for its success or standing 
to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role." 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
The June 25, 2007 letter from states: "[The petitioner] was employed by Liderzy 
magazine from 2002 to 2005 as a Marketing Director. Her salary was approximately 3,000.00 PLN 
per month . . . . The average annual salary in Poland for 2002-2005 was about 9,000 PLN . . . . ,, 
The "average annual salary" figure for Polish workers in general is not an appropriate basis for -- - 
comparison. The plain language of this regulatory criterion re uires the petitioner to submit 
evidence of a high salary "in relation to others in the field." 4 letter does not provide 
salary data for marketing directors or publication managers. In this instance, there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner's salary was significantly high in relation to others in her particular field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. 8 C .F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Comparable Evidence Under 8 C. I? R. 8 204.5@)(4) 
On appeal, counsel cites the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) and argues that the petitioner's age 
(29 years old at the time of filing) "should not be equated with inexperience or a lack of 
extraordinary skills." The director's decision, however, did not identify the petitioner's age a basis 
for denial. Counsel further states: "A person of age 29 may not be able to show similar long list of 
publications, prizes and other documentation that [sic] at the age of 59 or 79." As discussed 
previously, the petitioner's age at the time of filing does not relieve her from demonstrating that she 
meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for this classification. 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 evidence that eligibility for visa 
preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). In fact, the documentation of record specifically relates to 
several of the preceding regulatory criteria. Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. Moreover, we cannot 
conclude that experience or education in the areas of Public Policy or Administration equates to 
comparable evidence of achievements and recognition commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the petitioner's field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3) and (4). 
C. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kuzuriun opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). See also Kuzuriun, 2010 WL 725317 at *3. 
In this case, the specific deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already 
been addressed in our preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The 
submitted evidence is not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim and there is 
no indication that the petitioner's achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. Several of the individuals offering letters of support discuss the petitioner's activities 
with the Polish American community in Michigan and her "internship" with the City of Grand Rapids 
in 2006. The record, however, does not establish that such local activities are indicative of national or 
Page 12 
international acclaim in public administration, economics, or politics. The letter of support fiom 
describes the petitioner as having a "bright future" in public policy and administration, but 
there is no evidence demonstrating that her original work has had a significant impact in the field at 
large. The petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at 
the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top at some 
unspecified future time. Moreover, with regard to the petitioner's articles, there is no evidence that 
they have attracted a level of interest in her field commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim. Even in the aggregate, the submitted evidence does not distinguish the 
petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2). 
111. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent 
that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a 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 AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. fj 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
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. fj 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.