dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

identifying dam de\etd waSdeQ vent c~.@\Y U" rivsy P of persod P 
U.S, Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OSfice of ,4dministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
SRC 09 21 1 52728 
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. 9 11 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
EI~L 
Perry Rhew 
)i khief, Administrative 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 (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in business and/or education. The director determined that the petitioner had 
not established the beneficiary's requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive 
documentation of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the beneficiary demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present "extensive 
documentation" of his or her achievements. 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 implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 criteria that call for the submission of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
$6 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). Through the submission of required initial evidence, at least three of the 
ten regulatory criteria must be satisfied for an alien to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 
Page 3 
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. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
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, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines the following 
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. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 725317 (9th Cir. March 4, 2010). 
Although the court upheld the MO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the MO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' With respect to the criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate 
concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the MO's approach 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 MO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at *6 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 
tj 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. 5 204.5(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. 5 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclairn" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at *3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying 
under three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service 
Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo 
review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a 
one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Dor v. INS, 891 
F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
' Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had ilnilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
This petition, filed on July 8, 2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an entrepreneur. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).~ 
Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the Jield of endeavor. 
Counsel claims the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion is based on his company's success. 
Counsel alleges the petitioner's firm, Atlantica Investimentos, is ranked in first place among 
investment companies that manage pension funds in a single fund of investment and ranked seventy- 
eighth place among all other security investment companies in Brazil by Institutional Investor 
magazine. In an attempt to fulfill this criterion. the petitioner provided two articles from 
Institutional Investor from the May and July issues in 2008. The petitioner provides financial advice 
in both articles. The May issue describes Atlantica Investments as "an asset that has begun to act in 
the Brazilian market recently," which specializes in "investment abroad." The petitioner also 
provided another article from Institutional Investor from its March 2009 issue, that states that 
"Atlantica Administradora de Recursos which is considered the most focus company in pension 
funds, according to the ranking, obtained a growing of 10,22% in volume of financial assets in a 
period of six month ended on December 2008." The petitioner submitted two additional articles 
from Institutional Investor from August 2008 and March 2009, which contain graphs and articles 
regarding the "Top Asset(s)." However, no translations for either article were provided as required 
by 8 C.F.R. $ 1 03.2(b)(3). On appeal, this criterion was not claimed and no additional evidence was 
provided. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner's "receipt of lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." Therefore, 
even if the petitioner provided documentary evidence of the claimed rankings, which he has not, he 
also failed to establish that such rankings constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards and that they were "received by the petitioner. 
The record lacks evidence to demonstrate to what extent the petitioner was responsible for the 
rankings received by the company. Without providing evidence showing his exact contributions in 
such rankings, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner's work was responsible for the receipt of this 
"award." Moreover, it is not clear that a ranking would constitute an award or prize. 
Further, there was no documentation regarding the prestige, selection process or other investment 
firms that the petitioner's firm was competing against for its ranking. As such, the petitioner failed 
to establish the national or international recognition of these "awards." 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that his company's rankings constitute his receipt of 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards, and therefore has not established that he 
meets this criterion. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien ',I. work in thejield for which classlJication is sought. Such 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulation, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualie as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.3 
The petitioner provided the following evidence to satisfy this criterion: 
1. An article entitled, "Route of Investment is a two way street," dated May 2008, without an 
author, from the Institutional Investor; 
2. An article entitled, "Main subjects debated in the conference," dated July 2008, without an 
author, from the Institutional Investor; 
3. An article entitled, "Precaution is used by the institutions to do new investments," dated 
March 2009, without an author, from the Institutional Investor; 
4. An internet page from the Institutional Investor's website, indicating that its circulation is 
12,000 copies; 
5. A brochure from Atlantica Investimentos that provides general information; and 
6. An August 2008 article with no translation. 
No new evidence was submitted on appeal regarding this criterion. In his decision, the director 
found that the petitioner failed to satisfy this criterion, and we concur with his decision. 
The articles were not primarily "about the alien," as the plain language of this regulatory criterion 
requires. While the articles mentioned the petitioner, the articles were instead about investment options 
or, as acknowledged by counsel on appeal, "about a seminar on new opportunities to invest abroad 
with the petitioner offering his opinions regarding such topics. 
Moreover, the record contained limited and inadequate evidence to prove that the Institutional 
Investor is a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. While item 4 
contained some background information regarding the publication, such information came directly from 
the publication's own website. There was no independent evidence to support that the Institutional 
Investor is a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Further, this criterion also specifically requires that the evidence submitted contain a title, date, author 
and translation, if necessary. All the articles (items 1 through 3) failed to include an author. Items 2 
and 3 were only excerpted translations not the full translation required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). 
Further, item 6 contained no translation as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3) and 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, we cannot rely on this evidence. Without the proper translation required 
by regulation we can afford no weight to this evidence. 
For all of the above stated reasons, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signijicance in the field. 
Counsel, in his initial brief, claims the petitioner is eligible for this criterion stating that he was a 
"mentor of a fund of investment based on the Sovereign Debt of Brazil" and the fund is "presenting 
extraordinary results." To this end, the petitioner submitted a brochure regarding his fund. The 
petitioner also provided several reference letters, which were also submitted for the criteria under 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii). However, none of these letters have proper translator attestations. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has certified as 
complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English. The preceding letters were not certified by the translator as 
required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). 
Nonetheless. even if we were to examine such reference letters, the petitioner still fails to meet this 
criterion.  letter from 
 broadly addressed the role that 
the petitioner played for 
[Wlithout his experience and his work, [it] would not be impossible to achieve such 
excellent results such as the ones he obtained managing the Brazil Sovereign Fund. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter, dated June 23, 2009, from .>~ 
Distribution at Endicon. 
 letter explained that the petitioner worked for Endicon as Chief 
Financial Officer fkom 1989 to 1999. and that while in that 
 he "developed various projects, 
essential to the growth of ow (the) company." The petitioner also provided a letter, dated June 18, 
2009, from 
 who stated that the petitioner has "exceptional 
professional abilities." Additionally, 
 stated that the petitioner anticipated the global crisis 
and "created operations with protected capital, minimizing larger losses and as a result placing himself 
in a top position of reference among the other professionals of institutions of the financial market." 
On appeal, no new evidence was provided. However, the petitioner's appeal brief argued that the 
previously provided recommendation letters support his contention that he has made original 
contributions of major significance. 
The burden is on the petitioner to establish the significance of his work. To satisfy the criterion relating 
to original contributions of major significance, the petitioner must demonstrate not only that his work is 
novel and useful, but also that it has attracted sustained attention, had a demonstrable impact on his field 
at the national or international level or other commensurate evidence. The petitioner has not shown, for 
instance, how the field has changed as a result of his work so as to establish it was a contribution of 
major significance to his field. 
Moreover, although the reference letters provided by the petitioner contain usehl information about his 
qualifications and help in assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters were not submitted with the 
requisite translator certifications. Further, reference letters are not a substitute for objective evidence of 
the alien's achievements and recognition as required by the statute and regulations. Primary evidence 
of achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than the opinions of one's professional 
acquaintances. While the record includes attestations of the potential impact of the petitioner's work, 
none of the petitioner's references provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work is already 
influencing the field beyond the limited projects on which he has worked. While the evidence 
demonstrates that the petitioner is a talented and successful financial executive, it falls short of 
establishing that the petitioner has made contributions of major significance. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has perjormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Counsel. in his initial brief, claimed that he performed a critical role for his em~lovers. including 
letter that: 
[Hlis role in the management of a part of our assets was critical and without his 
experience and his work, would be impossible to achieve such excellent results such as 
the ones he obtained managing the Brazil Sovereign Fund, of which he is the manager 
and mentor of its strategies. 
Further, comments that the petitioner's achievement has placed him in "a osition of 
superiority over his peers." The petitioner also submitted a letter, dated June 23,2009, from h 
. As previously mentioned, letter 
confirmed that the petitioner worked for Endicon, as Chief Financial Officer from 1989 to 1999. 
Regarding the petitioner's responsibilities at Endicon, stated that the petitioner "developed 
various projects, essential to the growth of our (his) company." The petitioner also provided a letter, 
dated June 18, 2009, from who stated that the petitioner 
was "critical to the success of the FIDE bonds, in which he presented an incredible performance." The 
petitioner also submitted two articles from Instititional Investor from August 2008 and March 2009, 
Page 9 
which were previously submitted, that contain graphs and articles with the ranking of Atlantica 
Investimentos. However, no translations for either article were provided. 
On appeal, no additional evidence was provided. Nonetheless, the petitioner again cites to the 
aforementioned recommendation letters and articles. In addition, the appeal brief describes the 
petitioner's responsibilities during his employment at Endicon, Atlantica Investimentos and Postailis 
but provides no documentary evidence to support the claims. However, 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)). 
The director found that the petitioner failed to satisfy this criterion, and we agree. In order to establish 
that the petitioner performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire 
organization or establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. There was 
little discussion of his role or responsibilities within any of the organizations. The reference letters 
the petitioner failed to specifically describe the petitioner's responsibilities. For example, 
stated that the petitioner "developed various projects, essential to the growth of our (his) 
company," yet did not specify what the projects entailed, how many projects he developed or how his 
company grew as a result of the petitioner's involvement. 
Similarly, there is no evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's role differentiated him from others 
where he worked. For instance, the petitioner did not submit evidence such as an organizational chart 
which would demonstrate the petitioner's position within the organization. Mere title, without specific 
information regarding actual duties or explanation of relevance or importance of that position within the 
hierarchv of the organization's management is not sufficient to establish the petitioner's leading or - - 
critical role. Although praises the petitioner's achievements and states that they 
have placed him in "a position of superiority over his peers," does not address who 
he is referring to as the petitioner's "peers." Therefore, while the petitioner may have proven that he 
provided valuable services to his employers, he has failed to support the proposition that he has 
performed a leading or critical role for those organizations. 
Lastly, the evidence further lacks proof that the firms for which the petitioner served or was 
employed by had "distinguished reputations." There was limited independent information to 
demonstrate each company's standing in the community or world. 
Moreover, all the evidence provided for this criterion consists of reference letters. As previously stated, 
the translations provided for the reference letters failed to provide a proper translator certification. As 
such, these letters should not be considered as evidence. Nonetheless, we have read and analyzed these 
letters in making our determination regarding this criterion. 
The petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Page 10 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in thejield. 
Prior to appeal, the petitioner submitted a copy of his Form 1099, which indicates that in 2008 he 
was compensated by . as a nonemployee for over 6 million dollars. The 
petitioner also submitted his 2007 Form 1099 which indicates that -1 
provided him with over 3 million dollars as a nonemployee. The petitioner also provided a Form 
5471, which is an information return of U.S. persons with respect to certain foreign countries, 
regarding the stock that the petitioner owned in 2007 of Atlantica Administracao de Recursos. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted additional information, including a printout from the Foreign 
Labor Certification Data Center, which provided the median wages for "financial managers," an 
article from Forbes, dated July 2009, which stated that the average salary for bankers was "around 
$900,000 this year," and a page from www.askr~~en.corn, which indicated the highest salary for a 
Chief Executive Officer is $140,880. The petitioner's submission also included a 2009 Salary Guide 
for Brazil from Robert Half, which indicated that 540,000 per year in Brazilian currency is the top 
salary for "Finance Directors." 
We find this evidence, combined with other evidence in the record, to sufficiently establish that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
Counsel initially argued that he fulfills this criterion because Atlantica Investimentos "achieved high 
revenues and is managing over $300 million in a portfolio of securities." On appeal, the petitioner 
refers to the various articles from Institutional Investors which he feels demonstrate the success of 
the company. However, no new evidence was provided on appeal. 
In his decision, the director found that the petitioner had not met this criterion. The director held that 
this criterion does not readily apply to the claimed field of endeavor. We agree that the plain language 
of the criterion requires evidence of commercial success in the performing arts. As no claim has been 
made that the petitioner's field involves the performing arts, the petitioner cannot satisfy this criterion. 
Even if the category were expanded to include commercial success in all fields, no documentary 
evidence was provided to support this criterion. This regulatory criterion calls for evidence of 
commercial successes in the form of "sales" or "receipts." Simply submitting articles which show the 
petitioner's investment firm has made good investments, does not demonstrate "sales" or "receipts." 
The record does not include evidence of documented "sales" or "receipts" showing that the 
petitioner achieved commercial successes in the performing arts in a manner consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
Counsel argues in his appeal brief that "comparable evidence may be submitted where the listed 
categories are inapplicable." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of 
"comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation." The regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this 
case, as there is no evidence that eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot 
be established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) of which the 
petitioner has claimed that he meets four. Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of the 
regulatory 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. 
Moreover, 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 his field. The petitioner failed to specifically address 
which evidence would qualify as comparable evidence. The nonexistence of required evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, the classification sought 
requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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). 
C. Additional Issues 
Counsel contends on appeal that the director should have requested further evidence with regard to 
the criterion regarding a high salary under section 203(b)(l)(A)(ix) before denying the petition. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(8), the director is required to request additional evidence in instances 
"where there is no evidence of ineligibility, and initial evidence or eligibility information is 
missing." Id. The director is not required to issue a request for further information in every 
potentially deniable case. If the director determines that the initial evidence supports a decision of 
denial, the cited regulation does not require solicitation of further documentation. Regardless, as 
discussed above, we have found the petitioner meets this single criterion. 
D. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 2010 WL 725317 at *3. 
In this case, the specific deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already 
been addressed in our preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and 
(4). The petitioner submitted documentation relating to his claimed achievements in business. While 
the petitioner has established that he meets a single evidentiary criterion, he fails far short of meeting 
any additional criteria and has failed to submit sufficient documentation to show that he has been 
recognized in his field, that he has demonstrated national or international acclaim and that he is at the 
top of his field. For instance, as it relates to the criterion at 204.5(h)(3)(1), and (v) although the 
petitioner has demonstrated that the companies that he has worked for have been recognized and are 
currently successful, he has failed to provide any evidence that his work has had any impact on his field 
and that he has been recognized on a national or international level. The submitted evidence is not 
indicative of the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent 
with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
111. Conclusion 
Review of the record 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 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 his eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of 
the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.