dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
O@ce ofAdministrative Appeals 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
IN STRUCTIONS : 
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 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). 
6. ~~,~~~i~i~t~~ti~~ Appeals Office 
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 on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as 
an alien of extraordinary ability in business. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established that the beneficiary had sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner 
had failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that 
he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on August 3,2007, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a Vice President, Senior Account Executive. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for the 
beneficiary for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the beneficiary meets a specific criterion, 
the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent 
with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.'' 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria 
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 thejeld of endeavor. 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on three awards: 
1. 2007 FiFi Award for Fragrance of the Year; 
2. 2007 Cosmetic Executive Women (CEW) Beauty Award; and 
3. 2002 CPC Packaging Editors' Choice Award. 
The petitioner states that the beneficiary's "creation" of Sean John Unforgivable won the 2007 FiFi 
Award for Fragrance of the Year and the 2007 CEW Beauty Award for Best Scent. The petitioner 
submitted a self-serving letter from of Human Resources, North America, for 
Givaudan Fragrances Corporation, stating: 
[The beneficiary's] talent and success have won our company international prestige 
through prizes won at several of the industry's highest award ceremonies. Two of the 
products he developed were honored by the 2007 FiFi Awards, the fragrance industry's 
most celebrated and prestigious honor. [The beneficiary] ran fragrance development 
and sales for Sean John Unforgivable, a designer perfume made by Esteee Lauder for 
Sean "Diddy" Combs, which was 2007's #1 selling fragrance in the United States. 
Sean John Unforgivable was named Fragrance of the Year in the Men's Luxe category 
in the 2007 Fifi Awards, and was also the 2007 CEW Beauty Awards' Best Men's 
Fragrance. 
 developed by [the 
beneficiary] at Givaudan, also won a 2007 Fifi for Best New Fragrance in Limited 
Distribution for Women in England, Canada and Australia. Thanks to these and other 
awards earned by [the beneficiary's] accounts, Givaudan has garnered tremendous 
Page 4 
international fame and status which guarantee our ongoing success in the highly 
competitive international fragrance industry. 
The petitioner also submitted photographs of the 2007 FiFi Awards and a Web site page from The 
Fragrance Foundation indicating that Unforgivable by Sean John - Sean John FrangrancesIEstke 
Lauder won Fragrance of the Year - Men's Luxe. In addition, the petitioner submitted a Web site 
page from the American Chronicle indicating that Sean John FragrancesIEstke Lauder Unforgivable 
by Sean John won a 2007 CEW Beauty Award in men's scent $30 and over. 
Regarding the 2002 CPC Packaging Editors' Choice Award, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary 
was honored by the magazine for "a styling product he designed for Bumble and Bumble, called 
Sumotech." The petitioner also submitted a copy of the magazine article from CPC Packaging 
indicating that Sumotech by Bumble and Bumble won the Editor's Choice Award for personal care. 
The article also stated that "the team at salon Bumble and Bumble (New York City) had the 
product's distinctive hairstyling concept on which to build." 
The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires 
evidence of "the alien's receipt" of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. According to the submitted documentary evidence, the FiFi and 
Cew awards were presented to Sean Jean FragrancesIEstke Lauder rather than to the beneficiary. In 
addition, the CPC Packaging award was presented to Bumble and Bumble rather than to the 
beneficiary. We cannot conclude that awards that were not specifically presented to the beneficiary 
are tantamount to his receipt of nationally recognized awards. It cannot suffice that the beneficiary 
was one member of a large group or account manager of a product that earned collective recognition. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or3elds. 
At the time the petition was submitted, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's membership in the 
Fashion Group International (FGI) is evidence of eligibility in this criterion. In addition, the 
petitioner submitted the following: 
1. Copy of FGI's Web site page; 
2. FGI's Executive Membership Application; and 
3. FGI membership card for the beneficiary. 
While the petitioner did not contest the decision of the director in this criterion on appeal, we will 
address the beneficiary's eligibility under this criterion. 
FGI's Web site page indicates that FGI "is a global non-profit association of over 6,000 
professionals of achievement and influence representing all areas of the fashion, apparel, 
accessories, beauty and home industries." According to FGI's Executive Membership Application, a 
candidate must: 
1. Have held an executive, professional, or managerial position(s) in a fashion related 
industry for at least 3 years; and 
2. Be recommended by one executive member who has known the candidate in a 
professional capacity for at least 1 year. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the beneficiary's association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition 
for admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a 
given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this criterion 
as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a 
given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
The requirements listed above, which include at least 3 years in a fashion related position and the 
recommendation of one executive member, are not outstanding achievements. Other than meeting 
the minimum qualifying standards, outstanding achievement is not a prerequisite for membership in 
FGI. The petitioner has failed to establish how FGI's membership requirements reflect outstanding 
achievement as judged by national or international experts in the field as an essential condition for 
admission to FGI. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classijication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. An article from the Los Angeles Times Magazine titled "In Search of Shampoo," dated 
February 3,2002, written by - 
2. An article from Good Housekeeping titled "365 Great Hair Days," dated April 2002, 
written by ; and 
3. An article from CPC Packaging titled "CPC Packaging Editor's Choice Awards," dated 
MayIJune 2002. 
In the Los Angeles Times Magazine, the focus of the article is shampoo products and not the 
beneficiary. While the beneficiary was quoted a couple of times on behalf of Bumble and Bumble, 
the article also quoted another person and discussed other products. Therefore, we find that this 
article is not published material about the beneficiary. 
In Good Housekeeping, the article discusses picking the perfect shampoo, dandruff shampoos, and 
four steps in dealing with discontinued shampoos. The article quoted the beneficiary one time 
stating, "You can expect a lot from your shampoo, a lot." Similar to the Los Angeles Times 
Magazine article, the focus of this article is on shampoo products and not the beneficiary. Therefore, 
we find that this article is not published material about the beneficiary. 
In CPC Packaging, as discussed previously, the focus of the article is the editor's choice award for 
personal care for Sumotech by Bumble and Bumble. While the article quoted the beneficiary twice, 
the article is not published material about the beneficiary; rather the article is about the product 
Sumotech. In addition, the petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence establishing that CPC 
Packaging is a major trade publication or other major media. 
Notwithstanding the above, the statute and the regulations require the petitioner to establish that the 
beneficiary's national or international acclaim has been sustained. 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). The petition was filed on August 3, 
2007, but the above-mentioned articles were from 2002, a period of over 5 years prior to filing. The 
petitioner has failed to establish the beneficiary's requisite sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedfield of specialization for which class@cation is 
sought. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on the beneficiary's participation as a judge 
in two categories for the 2004 FiFi Awards. The submitted documentary evidence reflects that the 
beneficiary was a judge, along with eleven others, for the Best National Advertising Campaign of 
the Year - Print & TV. The beneficiary was also a judge, along with nine others, for the Best 
Packaging of the Year - Prestige and Popular Appeal (Men's and Women's). The petitioner also 
submitted a letter from of The Fragrance Foundation, stating that the 
beneficiary was selected as a judge "[blased on [the beneficiary's] reputation in the field and 
overwhelming experience and achievements in the fragrance industry." 
Nonetheless, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of 
extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." Evidence of the beneficiary's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these 
requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or 
is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
While we acknowledge the beneficiary's participation as a judge at the FiFi Awards, the evidence 
dates from 2004, and is not indicative of sustained acclaim in 2007 when the petition was filed. The 
petitioner does not claim to have participated as a judge of the work of others in his field at any other 
events. We do not find evidence that the beneficiary's participation as a judge at a single event 3 
years prior to the filing of the petition is sufficient to establish the level of sustained acclaim required 
for this highly restrictive classification. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, or business-related 
contributions of a major signlJicance in thefield. 
In support of the appeal, the petitioner states: 
One of the many examples of [the beneficiary's] original and significant contributions to 
the beauty and fragrance industry is his masterhl conceptualizations for the production 
and marketing of the cornerstone fragrance for Sean John Unforgivable, the 
groundbreaking scent created for Estee Lauder on behalf of Sean John "Diddy" Combs. 
While working as the Vice President, Sr. Account Executive of the Estee Lauder account 
[the beneficiary's] conceptualization for Sean John Unforgivable set an industry trend in 
2006: the use of a celebrity brand name to propel a product into stardom. Specifically, the 
way that [the beneficiary] captured the essence of masculinity and luxury which embodies 
Sean John "Diddy" Combs has completely redefined prior industry marketing paradigms. 
The petitioner also submitted Web site pages fiom Shop.SeanJohn.com, gnextinc.com, 
fragrancenet.com, and shopsafe.com. All of these Web site pages discuss Sean John Unforgivable and 
Sean Comb's involvement and history with the fragrance. In fact, none of the submitted documentary 
evidence supports the assertions made by the petitioner. 
 The record is absent evidence of the 
beneficiary's specific involvement in the fi-agrance of Sean John Unforgivable. While the petitioner 
submitted a previously mentioned letter from Sallye Pecker of Givaudan Fragrances Corporation stating 
that the beneficiary "developed" Sean John Unforgivable, there is no documentary evidence 
establishmg that the beneficiary made an original business-related contribution of a major significance 
in his field. 
- -- 
fi-agrance industry forward into a new century with his innovative marketing strategies and brilliant 
scent designs," he failed to mention what they were and how those strategies and designs were evidence 
of the beneficiary's original business-related contribution of a major significance in hs field. 
The petitioner also stated that the beneficiary "led development and marketing initiatives for Surf Spray 
and Sumotech, two products which have since become staples for every major designer." The 
petitioner submitted a Web site page from Bumble and Bumble citing celebrities who have used 
Bumble and Bumble products. Again, the petitioner failed to establish how the beneficiary's marketing 
initiatives for Surf Spray and Sumotech were original business-related contributions of a major 
significance in his field. 
The petitioner also submitted reference letters from individuals in the fragrance industw such as 
USA, Dragoco. In this case, the reference letters submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to 
meet this regulatory criterion. We note that the above letters are all from individuals who have 
worked or interacted with the beneficiary. While such letters can provide important details about the 
beneficiary's role in various projects, they cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary 
ability claim. The statutory requirement that an alien have "sustained national or international 
acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond the alien's immediate acquaintances. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Further, 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements as expert testimony. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. The submission of letters of support from the beneficiary's personal contacts in not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they 
became aware of the beneficiary's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of any immigration petition are of less 
weight than preexisting, independent evidence or original contributions of major significance that 
one would expect of an individual who has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top 
of the field. 
 Without extensive documentation showing that the beneficiary's work has been 
unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of 
original contribution of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe@ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims the beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion based on the beneficiary's current 
position as Vice President, Senior Account Executive for Givaudan Fragrances Corporation. The 
petitioner states: 
[The beneficiary's] responsibilities as Vice President and Senior Account Executive of 
the L'Orkal account span every aspect of product development and marketing. He 
manages the Focus Perfumery resources to develop winning fragrance themes for 
L'OrCal, and each of his many successes translates into more business and a greater 
market share for Givaudan in the highly competitive international designer fragrance 
market. [The beneficiary] is so critical to our business because his unique talents and 
extraordinary abilities in the fragrance and marketing aspects of product development 
enable him to provide comprehensive direction to Givaudan's perfumery staff, and thus 
enabling Givaudan to expand its overall portfolio at L70r6al. As the primary liaison 
between Givaudan and L70r6al, [the beneficiary] is trusted with developing and 
nurturing professional relationships with L70r6a17s most senior executives to ensure 
that Givaudan remains their sole preferred supplier. 
The petitioner submitted an article from The New York Times titled, "Ahhh, the Seductive 
Fragrances of Molecules Under Patent," dated February 23, 2008, by Chandler Burr. The petitioner 
also submitted Givaudan Fragrances Corporation's 2007 Annual and Financial Report. The article 
discussed the practice of cosmetic companies hiring fragrance consultancies to create new scents. 
The article did not mention the beneficiary nor did the article establish the beneficiary's leading or 
critical role for Givaudan Fragrances Corporation. 
We acknowledge that Givaudan Fragrances Corporation is a successful organization. However, the 
petitioner failed to establish how the beneficiary's role was critical or leading to Givaudan 
Fragrances Corporation's success. The previously mentioned letter from indicated that 
there are four other account executives within Givaudan Fragrances Corporation. The petitioner 
failed to establish how the beneficiary is distinguished from the other account executives or leaders 
within the corporation as to demonstrate that his role is leading or critical. 
The petitioner submitted letters of recommendations highly praising the accomplishments of the 
beneficiary. However, the letters of recommendations and statements by the petitioner are general 
and broad in nature when describing the beneficiary's specific riles, responsibilities, and 
accomplishments. For example, Global Marketing for L'Orkal, 
stated: 
[The beneficiary] was selected to run our account because of his exhaustive knowledge 
of the regional and global marketplace with respect to fragrance products, as well as his 
extraordinary track record developing and promoting the illustrious fragrance and 
beauty brands he has worked throughout his impressive career. 
failed to indicate what "illustrious fragrances and beauty brands" the beneficiary 
develoved and uromoted and what role the beneficiarv had on those ~roducts. 
 The vreviouslv 
mentioned letter from 
 of corporaie Fragrance ~ekelo~meit 
for 
 stated that the beneficiary "developed very successfully some beautiful hair care 
products and his involvement with the brand was strategic to its success." failed to 
indicate the specific hair products and what role the beneficiary had in their development. 
The petitioner also states that the beneficiary was Vice President of Marketing for Haannann & 
Reimer (Symrise). The petitioner submitted the 2007 Syrnrise Annual Report. However, according 
to the beneficiary's Form G-325A, Biographic Information, signed by the beneficiary on December 
Page 10 
18, 2007, he indicated that he worked for Symrise from January 2003 to December 2003. The 
petitioner failed to establish the relevance of Symrise's 2007 annual report when the beneficiary 
stopped working for Syrnrise at the end of 2003. Nonetheless, the petitioner stated that the 
beneficiary "coordinated with the research and development divisions to create masterful marketing 
plans for Symrise-developed products that fully satisfied clients' demands." The petitioner failed to 
specifically address the critical role or leadership of the beneficiary at Symrise. Instead, the 
petitioner provided a broad description of the beneficiary's role at Syrnrise. 
The petitioner also states that the beneficiary was Vice President of Product Development at Bumble 
and Bumble. The petitioner submitted Web site pages from Bumble and Bumble of celebrity 
testimonials of Bumble and Bumble products. Notwithstanding the fact that the beneficiary worked 
for Bumble and Bumble from June 1999 to August 2002 and the celebrity testimonials were 
substantially after 2002, the Web site pages fail to establish the beneficiary's leadership or critical 
role at Bumble and Bumble. Nevertheless, the petitioner also states: 
[The beneficiary] was critical to Bumble and Bumble's mission and success, and this is 
most readily apparent in the profits he generated for the company. His expert direction 
resulted in 80% of Bumble and Bumble's profits from its products division, totaling 
$30-40 million in annual revenue for the company. 
The petitioner is implying that the beneficiary was responsible for 80% of Bumble and Bumble's 
profits. However, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence supporting these 
assertions. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 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. § 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). 
The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that the beneficiary's positions 
were leading or critical to these companies as a whole. For example, the record does not include 
detailed job responsibilities discussing the nature of the beneficiary's duties and significant 
accomplishments and the importance of his role to the company's operations. The petitioner relies on 
the beneficiary's former job titles and submitted documentation that was general in describing the 
beneficiary's specific roles at various entities. The petitioner failed to establish the nexus between the 
beneficiary's critical role and the success and accomplishments at any of the companies. Further, the 
petitioner has not submitted an organizational chart or other similar evidence showing the 
beneficiary's position in relation to that of the other vice presidents employed by Givaudan 
Fragrances Corporation, Symrise, or Bumble and Bumble. There is no evidence demonstrating how 
the beneficiary's roles differentiated him from the other vice presidents who oversaw the companies' 
product development, let alone the companies' top executives. In this case, the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner does not establish that the beneficiary was responsible for Givaudan 
Fragrances Corporation's, Symrise's, or Bumble and Bumble's success or standing to a degree 
consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in thefield. 
The record contains tax documentation and information from the petitioner which indicates an average 
salary of around $200,000 from 2004 through 2006. The director concluded that the beneficiary 
commanded a high salary in relation to others in his field. 
We concur with the director's finding. As such, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary 
meets this single criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has established that he meets only one of the regulatory criteria, three of 
which are required to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets 
at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit 
comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). The petitioner 
argues that the beneficiary's participation in the New Ideas for Export Development Aid, Inc. 
(NIEDA) is comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. However, there is no 
evidence showing that the beneficiary's participation or involvement in NIEDA is indicative of 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field or is in any way on a level 
comparable to the regulatory requirements. 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the documentation the petitioner requests evaluation 
of as comparable evidence constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the beneficiary's field. Nevertheless, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the 
ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language 
precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that 
eligibility for visa preference in the beneficiary's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria 
specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). In fact, the petitioner has submitted evidence 
specifically addressing seven of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply 
unable to meet three of these criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) 
does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Finally, the petitioner requests USCIS to approve the petition since USCIS "has consistently 
recognized and reaffirmed the outstanding accomplishments and extraordinary abilities'' of the 
beneficiary by approving him of 0-1 nonimmigrant status. 
Page 12 
While USCIS has approved an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary, that 
prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, 
if similarly phrased standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after 
USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. 
Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin 
Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time 
reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant 
petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see 
also Texas AM Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding 
that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on 
a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest 
that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationshp between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant 
petition on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision 
of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 0 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the beneficiary's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at the national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.