dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

(b)(6)
DATE: 
AUG 0 8 2014 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business, pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.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.P.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. 
The petitioner 's priority date established by the petition filing date is September 17, 2012. On 
November 14, 2012 the director issued a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the petitioner's 
response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on February 13, 2013. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits a statement with additional documentary evidence in the form of his book. The petitioner 
previously submitted photocopies of excerpts from the book. 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion, on March 8, 2013. Over a year later, the petitioner submitted additional 
correspondence and evidence. The petitioner did not check the box on the Form I-290B Notice of 
Appeal or Motion indicating that he would be submitting a brief and/or additional evidence within 30 
days (the time period specified on the form) and did not otherwise request an extension to supplement 
the record pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(a)(2)(vii). Regardless, the documentary evidence is not 
probative of eligibility at the time of filing as it relates to achievements that postdate the petition filing 
date. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 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). We will consider the petitioner's assertions and supporting evidence relating to his 
achievements that predate the filing of the petition below. 
For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has 
not established his eligibility for the classification sought. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page3 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability.-- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101st 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. /d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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 decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the evaluation of evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 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. 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that we had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
The court stated that the 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 [we] did)," and if the petitioner did not 
submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as [we] concluded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)). 
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 this matter, we will review the evidence under the 
plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has not satisfied the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Oral Argument 
On appeal, the petitioner requests oral argument. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b)(l) provides that 
the requesting party must explain in writing why oral argument is necessary. Furthermore, USCIS has 
the sole authority to grant or deny a request for oral argument. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b )(2). In this 
instance, the petitioner asserted that he is one of the first professionals working in the field of supply 
chain management in large organizations and in academia as the reasoning behind his oral argument 
request. The petitioner did not explain why his achievements in his field cannot be adequately 
documented in writing or identify any issues of law to be resolved. As the written record of proceeding 
fully represents the facts and issues in this matter, the request for oral argument is denied. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
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. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that he is a member of more than one "association" in his discipline or field. Second, the 
petitioner must demonstrate both of the following: (1) that the associations utilize nationally or 
internationally recognized experts to judge the achievements (in the plural) of prospective members to 
determine if the achievements are outstanding, and (2) that the associations use this outstanding 
determination as a condition of eligibility for prospective membership. It is insufficient for the 
petitioner to claim that he was admitted to the association because of his outstanding achievements; the 
2 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding achievements of all prospective members. 
The petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner initially claimed membership in four associations, which he reduced to three in response 
to the director's RFE. The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this 
criterion. On appeal, the petitio:nPr nn lv f'.nntests the director's adverse decision relating to the 
petitioner's participation with the higher education author and reviewer team and as 
participation as a research reviewer for School of Management. The petitioner 
asserts that his field of expertise is as a supply chain management consultant and as an author. 
However, the petitioner only submitted evidence reflecting that he has authored one book prior to filing 
the petition and that book is in the field of supply chain management. Thus, the petitioner's field is 
supply chain management. 
The petitioner submitted two letters from Senior Brand Manager at 
Mr. . ; initial letter only indicated that the petitioner "has been included in 
the higher education reviewer team as 'Subject matter expert' and he will be involved in 
reviewing the works related to the subject of supply chain management as developed by other authors 
and researchers." Mr. . second letter submitted in response to the director's RFE reflected 
that applications for this team are evaluated based on authorship credentials, industry 
experience, 
teaching and research credentials, and a proven ability to meet tight deadlines. First, a reviewing team 
is not an association. Second, these requirements are not outstanding achievements in supply chain 
management and, thus, do not meet the regulatory requirements that the association requires 
outstanding achievements of its members. Third, the petitioner did not submit evidence to demonstrate 
that team membership with _ is "in the field for which classification is 
sought" as the regulation requires. Fourth, the petitioner also did not provide evidence reflecting that 
this association utilizes nationally or internationally recognized experts to judge the prospective 
members' achievements. Although the petitioner's appellate brief states that this team's membership is 
entirely based ,on proven credentials and outstanding achievements, he did not submit evidence to 
corroborate this 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), 
ajfd , 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). 
The petitioner submitted two letters from Associate Professor of Operations and 
Technology Management for School of Management. The petitioner claims that 
his work "as a subject matter expert and research 
reviewer in the field of SCM (Supply Chain 
Management)" is a qualifying membership under this criterion. Within his RFE response, the petitioner 
states: "The association of membership to serve as a guest trainer and doctoral research reviewer is 
provided to few excusive people who have performed exceptionally well in their area of work and are 
considered as industry experts and scholars." Neither participating as a guest trainer nor as a doctoral 
research reviewer constitute membership in an association as contemplated by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Furthermore, Professor second letter dated December 3, 2012 indicated that 
he was "planning to involve" the petitioner in these activities in the future. A petitioner must establish 
the elements for the approval of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). A 
petition may not be approved if the petitioner was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to 
become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. Rather, the evidence submitted under this criterion relates to the judging criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and will be discussed under that criterion below. Consistent with the 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence at section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires evidence that meets three separate criteria with different evidentiary 
requirements. 
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 specification for which classification is sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. While not all of the 
petitioner's reviewing duties occurred prior to the filing date, the record does include an April 4, 2012 
letter from Dr. of the who states: "I can confirm that [the 
petitioner] was and will be part of the of the [sic] reviewer team for the Colloq[u]ium European Retail 
Research 2012 as well as 2013." Thus, the record supports the director's conclusion that the petitioner 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions (in the plural) in his field. These 
contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the 
contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final 
requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather 
than to a project or to an organization. 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). Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner claims his contribution under this criterion to be the book he authored. The petitioner 
supported this claim through expert letters that the director considered, finding the letters to be vague 
when describing the petitioner's contributions. The director noted that some of the letters provided an 
indication of a future contribution to the petitioner's field while the regulation requires that the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
petitioner's contributions have already come to fruition. Within his appellate brief the petitioner states: 
"[My book] provides employable skills to the students to fill the thousands of well-paying jobs in [the] 
supply chain management field in the corporations and industries based in the United States." The 
petitioner subsequently refers to five expert letters but does not identify how his book was both an 
original contribution while also establishing that it has already made a significant impact within his 
field. which was the deficiency the director identified. For example, _ _ Dean of the 
asserts only that he can "imagine [the petitioner's book] in the hands of many 
MBA students across Latin America." - Dean of Academics for the 
, asserts that the petitioner's book is highly beneficial for students, but he 
does not provide examples of its widespread use. While Dr. an associate professor 
at asserts that she uses the petitioner's book as "a main reference for students," she does 
not provide examples of the book's wider influence in the field. Director of 
asserts that his company has reviewed and adopted the petitioner's book. While Mr. 
asserts thal collaborates with "multiple business schools in India," the record 
does not reflect the number of business schools that use the petitioner's book through their collaboration 
with · 
While the authors identify the petitioner's original work, they do not explain how the petitioner has 
already impacted the field. A petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the petition at 
the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12). A petition may not be approved if the beneficiary was 
not qualified at the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. An alien must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this 
regulatory criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 
2013 WL 6571822, at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013). 
Vague, solicited letters from local 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 eir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th eir. 2010). 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" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered 
above. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's possible future 
contributions , they cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. users 
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, users 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; 
users may evaluate the co~tent of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See 
id. at 795; 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"). 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
· - -- - · ---~~-------------
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy through the submission 
of evidence. The first is that the petitioner is an author of scholarly articles (in the plural) in his field in 
which he intends to engage once admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. 
Scholarly articles generally report on original research or experimentation, involve scholarly 
investigations, contain substantial footnotes or bibliographies, and are peer reviewed. Additionally, 
while not required, scholarly articles are oftentimes intended for and written for learned persons in the 
field who possess a profound knowledge of the field. The second element is that the scholarly articles 
appear in one of the following: a professional publication, a major trade publication, or in a form of 
major media. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying each of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
The director determined that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion based on his published 
book. The record does not support the director's favorable eligibility determination related to this 
criterion for the reasons outlined below. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criteion based on his authorship of a single book. The plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires evidence of "scholarly articles" in the plural, 
which is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of 
the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 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 US CIS' 
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 *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); 
Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005, at *1, *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). 
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted . evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
This criterion anticipates that a leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall 
organizational hierarchy and that it be accompanied by the role's matching duties. The petitioner also 
has the responsibility to demonstrate that he actually performed the duties listed relating to the leading 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
role. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the organization or the 
establishment's activities. The petitioner 's performance in this role should establish whether the role 
was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. The petitioner must demonstrate that the 
organizations or establishments (in the plural) have a distinguished reputation. While neither the 
regulation nor precedent speak to what constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam-Webster's online 
dictionary defines distinguished as, "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence ."3 Dictionaries are 
not of themselves evidence, but they may be referred to as aids to the memory and understanding of the 
court. Nix v. Hedden , 149 U.S. 304, 306 (1893). Therefore, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate 
that the organizations or establishments claimed under this criterion are marked by eminence, 
distinction, excellence, or an equivalent reputation. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all 
of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. Finally, a leading or critical 
role is essentially experience and the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(g)(1) provides that evidence of 
experience "shall" be in the form of letters from current or former employers, although the petitioner 
must also provide corroborating evidence of the distinguished reputation of the organization or 
establishment. 
The petitioner claims eligibility based on his roles for three organizations: 
and provided several letters in support. The director determined that the petitioner did not meet 
the requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner demonstrated that he performed in a leading or critical role for However, the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence that the petitioner 
performed in a leading or critical role for "organizations or establishments" in the plural, consistent with 
the statutory requirement for extensive documentation. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. 
In reference to his employment with , the only letter from an individual who is authorized to 
represent is a letter dated August 21, 2012 from · 
Ms. letter verifies the petitioner's work performed a1 an 
states that the petitioner 's work "has been critical to our project and we look forward for his continued 
effort for the overall success of the project." Ms. did not specify how the petitioner 's role in 
his capacity as system integrator consultant has been critical to the or to as a whole. 
USCIS need not accept the primarily conclusory assertions from Ms. regarding the petitioner 's 
impact 
on the . " See 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 
9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The remainin2: evidence asserting that the petitioner satisfied this criterion's 
requirements through is from . Senior Manager for The record does not 
contain any evidence indicating that Ms. · s authorized to speak on behalf of As such, the 
letter from Ms. ill not be considered as evidence regarding 
The petitioner's final claim under this criterion relates to his role at The letter attesting 
to the petitioner's role fOI is from , Senior Manager for In 
3 
See h!!;p.JLw>vw,rnerriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished, accessed on August 4, 2014, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
the same manner that Ms. was not authorized to represent the petitioner did not submit 
evidence demonstrating that Mr is authorized to represent 
did not submit evidence from an authorized ·epresentative, Mr. 
not be considered as evidence of the petitioner's experience with that organization. 
As the petitioner 
; letter will 
As the petitioner has only submitted evidence that he performed in a leading or critical role for one 
organization or establishment, he has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The director discussed the 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. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned his claims under this 
criterion . Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 
09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885, at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the 
plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO) . Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
C. Summary 
The petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be 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" 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. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While we conclude that the evidence is 
not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of the field or 
sustained national or international acclaim, we need not explain that conclusion in a final merits 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
determination.4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 
The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination 
as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of 
the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).