dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

DATE: 
INRE: 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
SEP 29 2011 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Innnigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 11S3(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
I 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
• 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(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. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3) and that he submitted comparable evidence of his 
extraordinary ability pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). For the reasons 
discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's decision. 
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 
Page 3 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. Id. and 8 C.F .R. § 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 categories of 
evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles III the field, III 
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. 
Page 4 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.! With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the [ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1 )(A)(i). 
!d. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on September 21, 2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as an International Legal Consultant. The petitioner received his Doctor of 
Juridical Science (SJ.D.) degree in International Trade Studies from the Golden Gate University 
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). 
Page 5 
School of Law in San Francisco in December 2005. The petitioner submitted an August 5, 2009 
letter stating: 
2008, as a Senior International Consultant, I am directly working with_ 
My responsibilities include advising the Government of Iraq on issues related to_ 
compliance and accession, international trade, globalization and trade related aspects of 
intellectual property rights, and providing technical assistance on capacity and institution 
building. 
Prior to that, I . oined the USAID project as an International Consultant (Advisor) on 
Growth and .l...JUJ,I.HV 
March 2006 to March 2008. I provided advice 
and technical assistance to the Government of Iraq in the field of WTO and Intellectual 
Property Rights. 
The petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner asserts that he was awarded a Research Assistantship by the S.J.D. International a_ 
The record, however, does not include documentary evidence of 
petitioner's Research Assistantship award and scholarships to support his assertions. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 221&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). A 
petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, there is no evidence showing 
that the preceding Research Assistantship and scholarships equate to nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the petitioner's field. 
The petitioner submitted a June 25, 1990 letter informing him that 
awarded him a scholarship for the academic year 1990-91. Academic study is not a field of 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, academic scholarships do not 
constitute prizes or awards for excellence in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Moreover, 
competition for university scholarships is limited to other students. Experienced professionals in 
the field who have already completed their education do not seek such scholarships. In this 
instance, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's scholarship was 
recognized beyond the presenting university and therefore commensurate with a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a "Certificate of 
program This certificate 
reflects recognition by his colleagues on the project team. There is no supporting 
documentary evidence showing that this award from the petitioner's project team equates to a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a September 8, 2008 letter from 
~ioner], has been honored with the 'A' 
_for your achievement in International Legal Studies in Ph.D. level from 
United States of America in 2005. 
~ate you for the achievement of 'A' grade 
_ We wish you and hope that you would work for the sake of motherland 
and use your knowledge and skill for country's well being. 
The petitioner also submitted a February 24,2001 article in The Rising Nepal stating: 
74 
The first class medal is awarded to persons receiving Ph.D. 
degree from the local and foreign universities. 
The petitioner's evidence also included a 
stating: 
conferred various npre" ... n 
special function organised at 
on Friday. 
s, at a 
to mark the 31st Education Day, 
According to State run a total of 168 persons were conferred 
with the medals including eighty persons with the A' Class 
for achieving Doctorate in various subjects from various universities at home and 
abroad .... 
* * * 
-Page 7 
A total of 3,641 persons have been conferred with the medals so far including 1,632 in 
class A .... 
Both of the preceding articles fail to discuss the ceremony in which the petitioner's September 
2008 award was conferred. Moreover, the documentation submitted by the petitioner indicates 
that his ward was presented to graduates who earned their "Doctorate in 
various subjects from various universities at home and abroad." Thus, the petitioner's award is 
based solely on academic achievement. Significantly, this office has held, in a precedent decision 
involving a lesser classification than the one sought in this matter, that academic performance, 
measured by such criteria as grade point average, is not a specific prior achievement that 
establishes the alien's ability to benefit the national interest. Matter of New York State Dep't. of 
Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 219, n.6 (Comm'r. 1998). As such, academic performance is 
certainly not comparable to the awards criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), designed to 
demonstrate an alien's eligibility for this more exclusive classification. Further, the petitioner 
did not submit evidence of the national or international recognition of his particular 2008_ 
~ ward, such as national or widespread local coverage of his award in profe~ 
or general media in 2008. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the 
field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this instance, 
there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's 2008 
Award for academic achievement was recognized beyond the context of the event where it was 
presented and therefore commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence in the field of international legal consulting. 
Moreover, the AAO notes that the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
requires qualifying "prizes or awards" in the plural. The use of the plural is consistent with the 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, 
not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single jUdging panel 
or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the 
plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of 
experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the 
remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld 
USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a 
regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 
2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) 
(upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" 
foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a 
combination of academic credentials). Therefore, even if the petitioner were to establish that his 
2008 Award meets the elements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), which he has 
not, a single qualifying award does not meet the plain language requirements of this regulatory 
criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
-Page 8 
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 asserts that he is a member of the International Law Association (ILA) and the 
International Bar Association (IBA). The record, however, does not include documentary 
evidence from the ILA or the IBA to support the petitioner's assertions. 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 SojJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. A 
petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b)(1). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
The petitioner submitted a June 27, 2007 letter from President of the 
Nepal Bar Association (NBA), stating that the petitioner has been "an active member of the 
Nepal Bar Association since 1982." Regarding the NBA, the ILA, and IBA, there is no 
documentary evidence (such as bylaws, rules of admission, or official membership criteria) 
showing that they require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in the petitioner's field. 
The director discussed the lack of evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the 
director's findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, 
considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. Us. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11 th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support from his legal colleagues in Nepal and individuals 
involved with his USAID projects in Iraq. The letters of support discuss the petitioner's 
educational qualifications, expertise in International Trade Law, work experience, USAID 
projects, delivery of training programs, and publications, but many of the letters fail to provide 
specific examples of "original" work done by the petitioner that equates to contributions of major 
significance in the field. Assuming the petitioner's legal skills and work experience are unique, 
the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In 
fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien 
employment certification process. See Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 
at 221. It is not enough to be skillful and knowledgeable and to have others attest to those 
-Page 9 
talents. An alien must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory 
criterion. Many of the references praise the petitioner's skills, knowledge, and legal experience, but 
they do not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work has already impacted the field at 
large or otherwise constitutes original contributions of major significance. Vague, solicited letters 
from 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. 20lO)? 
_ Chief of Party, Tijara project, USAID Provincial Economic Growth Program, Iraq, 
states: 
[The petitioner] is one of our Senior Advisors on a U.S. government financed foreign aid 
project in Iraq. His role on this project is to advise Government of Iraq Ministries and 
Judges on Intellectual Property and Trademark law and how to interpret and adapt this in 
Iraq in order to become compatible with international standards. 
In this capacity, he has distinguished himself as a major contributor in the effort of 
helping Iraq prepare to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is a core 
component of our Private Sector Development Program, known as USAID/Tijara. 
* * * 
He has aided the Government of Iraq to formalize responses sought by a WTO 
counterparty working committee, based in Geneva, Switzerland to questions concerning 
Iraq's understanding and enforcement capabilities of Intellectual and Property Rights 
Laws --- copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc. 
This has required in turn close coordination with Iraqi officials, and direct involvement of 
[the petitioner] to draft regulations, deliver specialized training courses to judges, 
government officials and also to private sector operators to raise public awareness of 
WTO membership benefits. He has both organized and authored numerous scholarly 
source materials, brochures and discussion documents on intellectual property rights in 
connection with the WTO accession process. 
While _comments that the petitioner is "a major contributor in the effort of helping Iraq 
prepare to join the World Trade Organization," he does not provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner's original work has already significantly impacted the field at large. Not only does the letter 
from_fail to identify any original contributions made by the petitioner, the letter also fails to 
indicate if the petitioner's work has been of major significance to the field as a whole and not limited 
to his immediate USAID projects. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner's contributions be "of major significance in the field" 
rather than limited to a particular economic growth project. 
3 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors 
attesting to [the alien's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant 
regulatory language." 596 FJd at 1122. 
Page 10 
Senior Economic Advisor and Fiscal Management Team Leader, USAID 
Tatweer - National Capacity Development in Iraq, states: 
For the past two and half years in Iraq, [the petitioner] drafted several laws on 
WTO/TRIPS [Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights] compliant Iraqi 
Intellectual Property Rights, prepared WTO documentation, delivered many and varied 
specialized training courses on WTO and intellectual property rights, and conducted 
research work in the area of intellectual property, WTO accession, and investment. 
_discusses the petitioner's general activities for the USAID Tijara project, but he does 
not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's original work has already impacted Iraqi 
trade, investment, or intellectual property rights so as to establish original contributions of major 
significance to the field. 
Director, International Trade/WTO Accession Component, Tijara project, USAID 
Provincial Economic Growth Program, Iraq, states in his initial letter: "[The petitioner's] 
assistance to the Government of Iraq has resulted in the drafting of a soon to be enacted 
intellectual property rights law that will be one of the most streamlined and innovative IPR laws 
in the world." The petitioner's evidence includes a "draft" copy ofIraq's "Intellectual Property 
Rights Law" that he prepared for USAID. In his subsequent letter submitted in response to the 
director's request for evidence (RFE), repeats his claim that "once this law is 
enacted, Iraq will have one of the most comprehensive and streamlined intellectual property laws 
in the world." assertions that the petitioner's work "will" someday result in one of 
the most comprehensive, streamlined, and innovative intellectual property laws in the world is 
not adequate to establish that his work is already recognized as a major contribution in the field. 
Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Commr. 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 
I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent 
to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. In this instance, there is no evidence showing the law 
drafted by the petitioner has been successful in affording intellectual property protections in Iraq 
or that it otherwise constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
In response to the director's RFE, Director, International Trade/WTO Accession 
Component, Tijara project, USAID Provincial Economic Growth Program, Iraq, provides 
additional comments on the draft Intellectual Property Rights Law stating: 
I have reviewed the Iraqi Intellectual Property Rights draft Law prepared by [the 
petitioner]. This draft law has been submitted to the WTO by the Government of Iraq, 
and it is currently undergoing the necessary procedural steps for adoption by the Iraqi 
Council of Representatives. This draft law is unique in its nature and will facilitate 
international trade by protecting intellectual property rights in Iraq. It is an important 
contribution in the field of international trade and intellectual property rights, and it is a 
truly significant accomplishment in this field. 
Page 11 
There is no evidence showing adoption of the petitioner's draft law by the Iraqi Council of 
Representatives or evidence demonstrating that it has been successful in . intellectual 
property protections to companies doing business in Iraq. Further, does not 
specify what is unique or original about the petitioner's draft Intellectual Property Rights Law or 
how its content differs from existing laws covering intellectual property rights in other more 
developed nations. 
Senior Advisor, Business Development Services, Tijara project, USAID 
tCIOn()mlC Growth Program, Iraq, also comments on the draft law in her response to 
the RFE stating: 
The Iraqi Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) draft Law, prepared by [the petitioner], is an 
important contribution in the field of international trade. . .. This draft law will promote 
and protect intellectual property rights in Iraq and will contribute to attracting foreign 
investment in Iraq. The draft law has been submitted to the World Trade Organization 
(WTO) by the Government of Iraq. Also, Iraq has already met the critical requirements 
of WTO accession. What's more about one and half years ago, this draft law proved so 
valuable that USAID forwarded it to the U.S. Ambassador of Iraq. The draft law 
represents a consequential effect upon international trade, and it can be considered a truly 
significant accomplishment as well as a major regulatory contribution in the IPR field. 
_ comments that draft law prepared by the petitioner "represents a consequential effect 
upon international trade," but she does not provide specific examples of measurable economic 
benefits that have already accrued which demonstrate the law to be successful and effective. 
There is no documentary evidence showing that the draft of Iraq's Intellectual Property Rights 
Law has been enacted, successfully enforced, or that it has otherwise significantly impacted the 
country's international trade. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the time 
of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49 
(Reg'l Commr. 1971). 
Aside from his preparation of a draft Iraqi International Property Rights Law, the petitioner 
asserts that his S.1.D. thesis entitled "Nepal's Accession to WTO and Nepalese Legislation 
Required to Give Effect to WTO Covered Agreement" and four formal reports that he authored 
meet the elements of this regulatory criterion. The regulations contain a separate criterion 
regarding the authorship of scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO will not 
presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly articles criterion is presumptive 
evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. Here it should be emphasized that the 
regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for 
authorship of scholarly articles and original contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly 
does not view the two as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at 
least three separate criteria. Thus, there is no presumption that every published article is a 
contribution of major significance; rather, the petitioner must document the actual impact of his 
article or presentation. Publication and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." 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 reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in fmding that the 
-Page 12 
alien had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. The petitioner's 
references do not provide specific examples of how the results from his published work are being 
widely applied by others in the field or that they otherwise equate to original contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that his report entitled "Conformity of 
Nepal's Domestic Legislation with WTO Agreements" was cited to twice and that his article 
entitled "Nepal's Accession to the World Trade Organization" was cited to only once. The 
petitioner has not established that this minimal level of citation of his work is indicative of original 
contributions of "major significance" in the field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of "major significance" in 
the field. 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 in 
APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). While the petitioner's scholarly 
articles and reports are no doubt of value, it can be argued that any doctoral thesis or scholarly 
research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication, presentation, or funding, must offer 
new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every legal scholar 
who presents original findings that add to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a 
contribution of "major significance" to the field as a whole. In this case, there is no documentary 
evidence showing that the petitioner's S.J.D. thesis, published work, and formal reports are 
frequently cited by independent scholars, that his particular original findings have been 
successfully implemented by many institutions or professionals throughout his field, or that his 
work otherwise constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field. 
In discussing the evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion, the director's decision stated: 
Regarding the fifth criterion, the record establishes [the petitioner] prepared the Iraqi 
Intellectual Property Rights draft Law. This has been submitted to the WTO by the 
government of Iraq. 
* * * 
However, given that 1) the Iraqi Council of Representatives has yet to officially accept 
[the petitioner's] draft, 2) Iraq has yet to be formally admitted to the WTO, and 3) [the 
petitioner's] draft as . . . written . . . has not as of the filing date of the petition taken 
effect, this proposed piece of legislation cannot at this time be considered as a major 
contribution in the field of international property rights and/or trade law. 
Additionally, the record provides no clear documentary evidence to support [the 
petitioner's] claim that either [his] doctoral dissertation or any of [the petitioner's] 
formally prepared reports constitute such a major contribution to [his] field that it greatly 
influenced many similarly employed professionals in your field. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the draft law "was accepted by the government of Iraq," "has 
received a lot of attention," has influenced and impacted the government of Iraq, and shows 
Iraq's commitment to the international community and foreign investors. Counsel also asserts 
that the U.S. Iraq Business Dialogue has "issued a statement to enact this draft law as soon as 
Page 13 
possible" and points to exhibit 46 of the appellate submission. Exhibit 46 includes a December 
3,2008 e-mail from an unknown sender to the petitioner and the petitioner's December 3, 2008 
response to the unidentified sender. The e-mail does not constitute a statement of endorsement 
issued by the U.S. Iraq Business Dialogue as implied by counsel. Without documentary 
evidence to support the preceding claims, 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's appellate submission also includes an excerpt from a U.S. Department of State, 
Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs "2009 Investment Climate Statement" stating: 
Iraq currently does not have adequate statutory protection for intellectual property rights 
(IPR). The GOI [Government of Iraq] is in the process of developing a new IPR law to 
comply with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property 
Rights (TRIPS). The draft law covers patent, trademark and copyright, and it is hoped 
that strong implementing regulations will help consolidate IPR protection functions, 
which are currently spread across several ministries, into a "one-stop" IPR office. . . . 
Although the new draft will offer adequate statutory IPR protections, it has been stalled 
in the constitutional review process since mid-2007. The GOl's ability to enforce IPR 
protections remains weak. 
The preceding report states that the draft law "will offer adequate statutory IPR protections" 
(emphasis added), but that it has not yet been enacted due to being stalled in the constitutional 
review process and that IPR protection in Iraq "remains weak." Accordingly, the petitioner has 
failed to demonstrate that the draft law he prepared has had any measurable impact in protecting 
intellectual property rights. As previously discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. In this 
matter, that means that the petitioner must demonstrate that his work had already significantly 
impacted the field at the time of filing. All of the case law on this issue focuses on the policy of 
preventing petitioners from securing a priority date in the hope that they will subsequently be 
able to demonstrate eligibility. See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1977); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; see also Matter of izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 
at 175-76. Consistent with these decisions, a petitioner cannot secure a priority date in the hope 
that his work will subsequently prove to be of major significance in the field. Ultimately, in order 
to be meritorious in fact, a petition must meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for 
approval as ofthe date it was filed. Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257,261 (4th Cir. 2008). To 
hold otherwise would have the untenable result of an alien securing a priority date based on the 
speculation that his work may someday have a significant impact on the field. 
Furthermore, the AAO notes that section 203 (b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act requires the submission of 
extensive evidence. Consistent with that statutory requirement, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "contributions of major significance" in the plural. [Emphasis added.] 
Therefore, even if the petitioner were to submit supporting documentary evidence demonstrating 
that his preparation of a "draft" Iraqi "Intellectual Property Rights Law" qualified as an original 
contribution of maj or significance in the field as of the petition's filing date, which he has not, the 
plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of more than one original contribution 
-Page 14 
of major significance in the field. Without documentary evidence of more than one qualifying 
contribution, the petitioner cannot establish that he meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the director "failed to adequately consider the recommendation 
and evaluation letters from the experts in the field of International Intellectual Property Rights 
and International Trade involving WTO." The AAO notes that all of the reference letters 
submitted by the petitioner are from individuals who have directly interacted with him or who 
are affiliated with his USAID projects. While such letters are important in providing details 
about the petitioner's work on various projects, they cannot by themselves establish that his work 
is recognized beyond his professional contacts. The opinions of experts in the field are not 
without weight and have been considered above. 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 (Comm'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 
795-796; 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"). Thus, the content of the experts' 
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 that one would 
expect of an international legal consultant who has made original contributions of major 
significance. Without supporting evidence showing that the petitioner's work equates to original 
contributions of major significance in his field, the AAO cannot conclude that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien IS authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has documented his authorship of scholarly articles that were published as of the 
petition's filing date and, thus, has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
We withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. At issue is 
whether the petitioner played a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment as a 
whole and the reputation of the organization or establishment. As previously discussed, the 
petitioner submitted letters of support discussing his work for USAID in Iraq. 
states: 
During 2006-2009, [the petitioner] was employed by The Services Group (which is now 
AECOM International) to serve as a special intellectual property rights consultant for the 
USAID/Iraq project, Izdihar, and then for the follow-on USAID/Iraq project Tijara. Both 
Page 15 
of these projects have been the key initiative by the U.S. Government to assist Iraq in 
joining the World Trade Organization. 
states: 
I have observed and evaluated [the petitioner's] work and role. His work is directly 
related to USAID, and he provided USAID technical assistance to the Government of 
Iraq. Both the Government of Iraq and USAID hold a distinguished reputation. [The 
petitioner], as a consultant, performed a critical and leading role for the USAID program 
and for the Government of Iraq by providing technical assistance, drafting TRIPS 
compliant intellectual property rights laws, preparing WTO documentation, providing 
specialized trainings, and advising on WTO accession issues related to intellectual 
property. 
asserts that the Government of Iraq and USAID have a distinguished reputation, 
but the record does not include any documentary evidence to support his claim. Merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 
41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney 
General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9,15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
states: 
[The petitioner] was hired by AECOM to work as a consultant for the USAID program in 
Iraq and to work in conjunction with the Government of Iraq. The USAID Iraq program 
is funded in total by the US Government. Both the Government of Iraq and USAID 
maintain a distinguished reputation. While [the petitioner] worked for the two USAID 
programs and for the Government of Iraq, he performed a leading role for both 
governments by providing legal advice and technical assistance. Additionally, he played 
a critical role to provide USAID technical assistance to the Government of Iraq by 
drafting TRIPS compliant intellectual property rights law, preparing WTO 
documentation, providing specialized trainings, and advising on WTO accession issues 
related to intellectual property. 
In response to the RFE, counsel argues that the petitioner "has performed in a leading or critical 
role for USAID and the Government of Iraq (GOI)" and that both "unequivocally" have a 
distinguished reputation. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of 
counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. As previously discussed, the 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 533, 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 1, 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. at 503, 506. Regarding the Government of Iraq's reputation, the AAO cannot 
ignore that the petitioner describes that country in his August 5, 2009 letter as "plagued with 
violence, terrorism, lawlessness, and lack of proper legal infrastructure." Further, the U.S. 
Department of State, Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs "2009 Investment 
Climate Statement" notes that the "GOl's ability to enforce IPR protections remains weak." In 
this case, there is no documentary evidence showing that the Government of Iraq has a 
Page 16 
distinguished reputation. Moreover, the documentation submitted by the petItIOner is not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's role as a consultant or advisor on the USAID 
Izdihar and Tijara projects is leading or critical to the Iraqi Government as a whole. The record 
lacks evidence that the petitioner contributed significantly to the activities of the government 
beyond the normal expectations of an economic growth program advisor. 
While the petitioner has submitted letters of support indicating that he performed admirably on 
projects for the International Trade and WTO Component of USAID, there is no documentary 
evidence showing that his role as a Senior Advisor on WTO and Intellectual Property is leading 
or critical to USAID as a whole. The petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how his 
temporary contractual appointment differentiates him from the numerous other consultants and 
advisors contracted to work for USAID, let alone the agency's permanent employees and executive 
management. The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was 
responsible for USAID' s success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or 
critical role." Further, the record does not include documentary evidence showing that USAID has 
a distinguished reputation. 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 ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, the AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least 
three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Comparable Evidence Under 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(4) 
On appeal, counsel argues that the director erred in failing to consider the recommendation 
letters, the petitioner's S.l.D. degree, his Master's degree in International and Comparative Law, 
the three cites to his published work, his presentations at seminars and symposia, his faculty 
'tion at the his selection as a Visiting Scholar at 
Certificate of Traineeship from the 
as comparable evidence of his extraordinary ability. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" 
only ifthe ten categories of evidence "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 categories of evidence specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of the regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the 
submission of comparable evidence. 
Nevertheless, the deficiencies in the preceding documentation have already been addressed under 
the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (v), and (viii). Further, there is no 
Page 17 
evidence showing that the documentation the petitioner requests reevaluation of as comparable 
evidence constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. Regarding the recommendation letters 
submitted by the petitioner, the AAO notes that they are all from the petitioner's professional 
associates in Nepal or those who are affiliated with his USAID projects. While such letters are 
important in providing details about the petitioner's role in various projects, they cannot by 
themselves establish the petitioner's acclaim beyond his immediate circle of colleagues. 
Moreover, reference letters are not comparable to extensive evidence of the alien's achievements 
and recognition as required by the statute and regulations. The nonexistence of required evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). The classification sought requires 
"extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The 
commentary for the proposed regulations implementing the statute provide that the "intent of 
Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this 
regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" 
for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Primary evidence of 
achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than opinion statements from 
references selected by the petitioner. 
With regard to the petitioner's S.lD. degree and Master's degree in International and 
Comparative Law, this office has held, in a precedent decision involving a lesser visa classification 
than the one sought in this matter, that academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade 
point average, is not a specific prior achievement that establishes the alien's ability to benefit the 
national interest. Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n.6. As such, 
academic performance is certainly not comparable evidence of sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of the field necessary to demonstrate an alien's eligibility for this more 
exclusive classification. 
In regard to the three cites to the petitioner's published work, this documentation has already 
been addressed under the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). There is no evidence 
showing that this minimal level of citation of his work is indicative of original contributions of 
"major significance" in the field or sustained national or international acclaim in international law. 
Regarding the petitioner's presentations at seminars and symposia, the reputation of the 
petitioner's speaking venues is undocumented. While presentation of the petitioner's work 
demonstrates that it was shared with others and may be acknowledged as original work based on its 
selection for presentation, the AAO is not persuaded that his presentations significantly impacted 
the field or that his level of recognition extended beyond the engagements in which his work was 
presented. The petitioner failed to establish, for example, that his presentations were of major 
significance so as to establish their impact or influence beyond the audience at the conferences. 
Many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposia to present new work, discuss 
new findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are promoted and 
sponsored by professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government 
agencies. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's presentations have been 
frequently cited by independent legal scholars in their work or that his presentations have 
otherwise significantly impacted his field. The petitioner has not established that his 
Page 18 
presentations were indicative of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
field. 
With regard to the pel[lWJm~r 
selection as a 
of Traineeship 
evidence showing that these appointments and traineeship constitute achievements and 
recognition consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
A final merits determination that considers all of the evidence follows. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
The AAO will 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." Section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In the 
present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have 
already been addressed in the preceding discussion of the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (v), and (viii). 
With regard to the evidence submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), this decision has already 
addressed why the submitted awards do not rise to the level of nationally or internationally 
recognized awards for excellence in the field. The evidence discussed above is also not 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that 
the petitioner is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. The 
AAO notes that competition for the petitioner's Research Assistantship, scholarships, and Nepal 
Bidhya Bhusan Award was based on student achievement and therefore excluded experienced 
legal professionals and faculty who already completed their educational training. Such awards 
do not establish that the petitioner "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). USCIS has long held that even athletes 
performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
immigrant classification as an alien of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 
954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.4 Likewise, it does not follow that receiving 
awards based on academic achievements should necessarily qualify an international legal consultant 
4 The AAO notes that in Matter a/Racine, 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 at least one other court in 
this district, Grimsan v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and 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. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
for approval of an extraordinary ability employment-based immigrant visa petition. To find 
otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) that this visa 
category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their 
field of endeavor." 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
as previously discussed, there is no evidence showing that the NBA, the ILA, and IBA require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the petitioner's field. The petitioner has not established that his memberships are 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that 
he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. 
Regarding the petitioner's publications, doctoral thesis, formal reports, and draft Iraqi International 
Property Rights Law discussed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), as stated above, they do not 
appear to rise to the level of contributions of "major significance" in the field. Demonstrating that 
the petitioner's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior scholarly work is not 
useful in setting the petitioner apart through a "career of acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 
59 (Sept. 19, 1990). That page (59) also says that "an alien must (1) demonstrate sustained national 
or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics (as shown through 
extensive documentation) .. ,," Scholarly work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the 
petitioner a master's degree, let alone classification as an international legal consultant of 
extraordinary ability. To argue that all original reports and legal publications are, by definition, 
"extraordinary" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
scholarly work is "unoriginal." 
With regard to the evidence submitted for the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the 
AAO acknowledges that the petitioner has authored articles in a university . 
petitioner is listed among the 
"""'''+''r1tY1 research as a 
The Department 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), 2010-11 Edition, (accessed at www.bls.gov/oco on 
September 26, 2011 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), provides information about 
the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the requirements for such a 
position. See http://www.bls.gov/oco/pdf/ocos066.pdf. The handbook expressly states that faculty 
members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the professor's research 
record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs training students for faculty 
positions require a dissertation, or written report on original research. ld This information reveals 
that original published research does not set a legal scholar apart from other faculty in that scholar's 
field. 
Moreover, the petitioner's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the petitioner's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. As previously discussed, the documentation submitted by the petitioner 
indicates that his body of work has been only minimally cited as of the petition's filing date. The 
number of independent cites to the petitioner's work at the time of filing is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that his articles have attracted a level of interest in his field commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
-Page 20 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the record does not establish that the petitioner has performed in a leading or 
critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The evidence 
submitted by the petitioner does not establish that his work as senior advisor and consultant on 
WTO and intellectual property projects for USAID was leading or critical to his affiliated 
institutions, or otherwise commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of his field. 
In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of filing were 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as an international legal consultant, 
or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The conclusion we 
reach by considering the evidence to meet each category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Ultimately, the evidence 
in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to 
such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim 
and to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive 
that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a 
national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
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. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.