dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

. dentifying data deleted to d 
1 1 1 unwarrante 
prevent c ear Y \' C'j 
invasion of persona pnva 
PUBLlCCOPY 
F[LE: 
IN RE: 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 
Date: 
FEB I 7 2011 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for A[ien Worker as an A[ien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.C. § I I 53(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
[NSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been retumed to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
[fyou believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
infomnation that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Fomn [-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of$630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days ofthe decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
• 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
subsidiary of 
It seeks classification of 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 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 petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence for the alien under at least three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We acknowledge that the standard of proof is preponderance 
of the evidence, as noted by counsel on appeal. The "preponderance of the evidence" standard, 
however, does not relieve the petitioner from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements 
required by the statute and regulations. Therefore, if the statute and regulations require specific 
evidence, the petitioner is required to submit that evidence. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3). In this case, the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the beneficiary has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if --
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
Page 3 
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 10 I st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. Id. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge 
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; 
Page 4 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has perfonned 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 perfonning 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, 596 F.3d IllS (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.! With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(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 detennination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfY the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits detennination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS detennines 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 1 field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § IIS3(b)(1 )(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-1120. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 102S, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 FJd 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
-Page 5 
see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Analysis 
This petition, filed on luly 23, 2009, seeks to 
extraordinary 
beneficiary was 
seeks to employ the beneficiary as 
Operations, a position he has held 
2006. 
A. Major, internationally recognized award 
classify the beneficiary as an alien with 
executive." At the time of filing, the 
The petitioner 
of Planning and 
since November 
On appeal, counsel argues that selection for membership in the International 
Newspaper Color Quality Club (INCQC) constitutes the beneficiary's receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award. The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states 
that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Given Congress' intent to 
restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of 
their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one-time achievement 
must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying as major, 
internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 
1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. Given that the House Report specifically 
cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement, examples of one-time awards 
which enjoy major, international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy 
Award, and an Olympic Medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating 
that a one-time achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in 
the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name to the 
public at large, and includes a large cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could 
conceivably constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear 
from the example provided by Congress that the award must be internationally recognized in the 
alien's field as one of the top awards in that field. 
The petitioner submitted five certificates from the IFRA (INCA-FIE] Research Association; 
whereby "INCA" stands for "International Newspaper Colour Association" and "FIEl" stands for 
"Federation Internationale des Editeurs de lournaux") .. a "Member" of 
the "International Newspaper Color Quality Club." The certificates are for the periods 2000-
2002,2002-2004,2004-2006,2006-2008, and 2008-2010. Four of the certificates state: 
Member of the Club 
In honor and recognition of~ newspaper quality reproduction and printing 
practices, we hereby present _ with this certificate of membership in the ... 
International Newspaper Color Quality Club. 
Page 6 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires the alien's re~ 
internationally recognized "award." The petitioner has not established that_ 
"certificate of membership in the ... International Newspaper Color Quality Club" [emphasis 
added] equates to the beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized "award." 
also submitted a letter from 
to the beneficiary stating: 
Herewith we want to certify that the newspaper by your guidance and 
management as Operation Director successfully participated and won multiple times the 
exclusive membership in the International Newspaper Color Quality Club. 
Gaining membership in the INCQC winners group requires a lot of knowledge and 
competence in selection and handling of PrePress, Press and Mailroom equipment, but 
also in manpower and motivation. 
was able to succeed which 
demonstrates impressively that this newspapers [sic] belongs print quality related to the 
top 50 newspapers in the world. 
Aim of the INCQC is to promote high quality color printing, to ensure the competition 
ability of newspapers to other media, to extend the amount of enthusiastic readers and to 
prove to worldwide and locally working advertisement agencies the competence in 
printing by conformity with the rigorous standards of ISO [International Organization for 
Standardization] 12647-3, which makes sure that reliable results are printed, always. 
The International Newspaper Color Quality Club is the only worldwide print quality 
competition for newspapers. It has been organized every two-years since 1994 by IFRA 
with the support of NAA Newspaper Association of North America (USA), PANPA 
(Australia) and ZMG Zeitungs Marketing Gesellschaft (Germany). 
IFRA is the worldwide research and service organization for the news publishing 
industry. With headquarter in Darmstadt, Germany; it has acted since 1961 as worldwide 
platform for decision-makers. 
We cannot conclude that gaining "membership" in the INCQC through "competence in printing" 
by conformity with the "standards of ISO 12647-3" is tantamount to receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award.2 Rather, this designation simply reflects a newspaper's 
capacity to produce printing content in accordance with specific ISO industry standards. 
2 Infonnation about achieving INCQC membership available at the IFRA's website (accessed at www.ifi'a.com on 
February 7, 201 I and incorporated into the record of proceedings) states: 
WAN-IFRA is happy to announce that 109 different titles achieved INCQC 2010-2012 club membership. 
The successful newspaper titles can be proud. They give an impressive demonstration of their capacity to 
produce in accordance with the exacting ISO standards and are therefore in a position to reliably reproduce 
Page 7 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a second letter from 
stating: 
The World Association of Newspapers and IFRA, the leading international associations 
for print and digital news publishing, have merged into a new organisation, the World 
Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) .... WAN-IFRA is 
dedicated "to be the indispensable partner of newspapers and the entire news publishing 
industry worldwide, particularly our members, in the defense and promotion of press 
freedom, quality journalism and editorial integrity, and the development of prosperous 
businesses and technology." 
* * * 
The IFRA International Newspaper Color Quality Club (INCQC) sets the standards for 
newspaper printing quality worldwide. Participants awarded membership in the Color 
Quality Club earn the equivalent worldwide recognition and prestige in the printing 
industry as performing artists do with awards like the Oscar, Emmy or Grarnmy. IFRA 
established the biennial competition for membership in the International Newspaper 
Color Quality Club in 1994 with the objective of improving the day-to-day quality in 
reproduction and printing at newspapers worldwide. This quality benchmark is based on 
proven international process standards. Successful newspapers are awarded membership 
for a two-year period in the exclusive club of top-quality titles. 
With over 3000 publishing groups represented by IFRA, we had a record 198 newspapers 
(that had competition-worthy quality) participating in the INCQC 2008-2010. The 50 
winners of this edition have truly staked their claim to being the best printed papers in the 
entire world. Last year's class is indeed impressive, especially when you consider the 
competition: The participants represented 43 countries and all five continents. Of these, 
50 percent are first-time members in this exclusive community, and managed to reach 
this status under very difficult conditions. In other words, only one quarter of all INCQC 
participants could gain the coveted membership. 
color images and advertisement contents consistently, worldwide, and with the intended color effect. This 
provides impressive confinnation of the successful efforts aimed at achieving international standardisation 
as supported by WAN-IFRA, but especially the successful motivation of the personnel working in every 
printing plant, the successful choice of materials, the well-founded knowledge of the setting parameters for 
the entire workflow and the skillful use of measuring and control techniques. The INCQC quality initiative 
helps ensure that the reader receives an attractive, high-quality product and the advertiser an outstanding 
advertising carrier. Participants appreciated the support for a better understanding and implementation of 
the ISO 12647 print standard in their daily production in order to improve the printing process. 
See http://www.ifra.com/website/website.nsflhtmIlCONT INCQC HOME?OpenDocument&INCQC&E&, accessed 
on February 7, 2011, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
-Page 8 
With respect to the successful participation of 
newspaper headed by [the beneficiary], it is simply, solely and primarily due his hands-
technical skills, and that his has 
implemented directly under [the beneficiary's] guidance . 
•••• states that 50 out of 198 participating newspapers earned membership in the INCQC 
in 2008-2010 alone. Further, according to the IFRA's website, "109 different titles achieved 
INCQC 2010-2012 club membership" in the latest biennial period3 Moreover, the five 
certificates submitted from the IFRA specifically mention rather than the 
beneficiary. As such, it has not been established how selection for INCQC 
membership demonstrates the beneficiary's national or international recognition in the newspaper 
publishing industry. It cannot suffice that the beneficiary was a part of a large newspaper staff 
that earned collective recognition. asserts that "[p]articipants awarded membership in 
the Color Quality Club earn the equivalent worldwide recognition and prestige in the printing 
industry as performing artists do with awards like the Oscar, Emmy or Grammy." The record, 
however, does not include supporting documentary evidence of the "worldwide recognition and 
prestige" in the industry which _ claims is the result of earning INCQC membership. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 
1972)). All of the submitted documentation pertaining to INCQC membership originates from 
its organizer the IFRA. Accordingly, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that 
earning INCQC membership is recognized beyond the organizing body and therefore 
commensurate with a major, internationally recognized prize or award in the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate evidence of a qualifying one-time 
achievement by the beneficiary. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)4 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
3 See http://www.ifra.com/website/website.nsflhtmllCONT INCOC HOME?OpenDocument&INCOC&E&, accessed 
on February 7, 2011, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
4 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit documentation relating to the categories of evidence not discussed 
in this decision. 
-Page 9 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted 
_ as a "Member" of the INCQC. The five certificates were presented to 
rather than the beneficiary. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
specifically requires documentation of "the alien's receipt" of nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards, not his employer's receipt of the awards. Moreover, the petitioner 
has not established that membership certificates in the INCQC (based on 
the ability to produce printing content in accordance with specific ISO industry standards) 
constitute nationally or internationally recognizes "prizes or awards for excellence in the field." 
Finally, all of the submitted documentation pertaining to INCQC membership originates from its 
organizer the IFRA. There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that that receiving 
INCQC membership is recognized beyond the IFRA's selection process and therefore 
commensurate with a "nationally or internationally recognized" prize or award for excellence in 
the field. 
The petitioner submitted documentation of additional honors received by _ including: 
competition for the newspaper edition of September 9, 1995; 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
13. 
14. 
competition for offset 
-Page 10 
16. 
17. 
27. 
28. 
29 
30. 
31. 
32. 
33 
34. 
35. 
36. 
37. 
38. 
for the 
newspaper edition 
of September 21, 2001; 
graphic products 
products competition for the newspaper edition of June 23, 2003; 
_ graphic products competition for the newspaper edition of June 26, 2006; 
Page 11 
products competition for the newspaper edition of February 19,2007. 
In response to the director's ~~>l ~itioner submitted an August 5, 2009 
stating: "FIGE certifies that the 
has participated in Graphic Quality competitions held both 
int,ernati,olllilly and locally, obtaining great recognition and major prizes from 1990 to date." • 
letter from 
newspaper 
does not provide specific explanations about the "major prizes" to which he refers. 
Moreover, his letter does not identify any awards specifically received by the beneficiary. With 
regard to items I through 43 above, these awards were presented to _ rather than the 
beneficiary. As previously discussed, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires documentation of "the alien's receipt" of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards, not his employer's receipt of the awards. It cannot 
suffice that the beneficiary was a part of a large newspaper staff that earned collective 
recognition. Further, the record does not include information from the presenting organizations 
explaining the significance of the preceding awards or their evaluation criteria. The plain 
language of this criterion specifically requires that the alien's awards be nationally or internationally 
recognized in the field of endeavor and it is the petitioner's burden to establish every element of this 
criterion. In this case, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary 
received the preceding awards and that they are recognized beyond the presenting organizations 
and therefore commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a certificate from _ 
stating that the beneficiary 
"was decorated with the Medal of Honor on January 28, 2005, in recognition of his years of work in 
charge of a pioneering company in the forging of great trade achievements as 
between "to the . submitted curriculum vitae, he 
worked as from 
September 2003 to May 2006. The beneficiary's curriculum vitae states that he improved_ 
market share in Ecuador "from 0.01 % to 5.7% in less than three years." In this case, the "field of 
endeavor" in which the beneficiary intends to work in the United States is the newspaper publishing 
industry, not the automotive industry.5 The statute and regulations require that the beneficiary 
seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(1 )(A)(ii) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). Accordingly, the beneficiary'S 
5 Pages 3 - 5 of the appellate brief from counsel emphasize that the beneficiary works in the "newspaper publishing 
field." 
Page 12 
Medal of Honor 
automobile sales for 
fos;tering "trade between France and Ecuador" in the form of 
is not in the field of endeavor in which the 
beneficiary seeks to continue to work. Further, the record does not include supporting evidence 
documenting the significance of the Medal of Honor or its evaluation criteria. There is no 
evidence demonstrating that the award equates to a nationally or internationally recognized prize 
or award for excellence in the field. Moreover, even if the petitioner were to establish that the 
beneficiary's Medal of Honor meets all the elements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
which it has not, the statute requires the submission of "extensive documentation." Section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(l)(A)(i). Consistent with that statutory requirement, 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires the alien's 
receipt of "nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards" in the plural. [Emphasis 
added.] One such qualifYing award does not meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for 
admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a 
given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfY this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall 
prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted an April 28, 2009 letter from 
[the beneficiary] as an active member of our 
membership on the Advisory Board and whether the 
association in the field for which classification is SOllght. 
evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
••• : stating: 
In its continuous effort to excellence, the 
administration called for an Advisory Board mhi~h '11IJU1U 
outstanding and successful personages in the entrepreneurial and management 
whose contribution would guarantee the best professionals-graduates. 
The Advisory Board should in brief: 
a) complement the vision the _top management. 
b) act as sentries and scouts of opportunities and threats to the_ 
Page 13 
c) be a source of new ideas related to new programs 
d) act as access providers to relevant networks with a local and global scope 
e) provide expert advise and counseling in strategic decision making 
f) represent the in the local and global community. 
g) be part of the requirements of the Commission for Independent Education of the 
Florida Department of the advisory board shall review periodically the 
educational programs of the 
To become part of this Advisory Board a member should provide (selection criteria): 
a) Depth of knowledge of a particular sector with local and global scope. Of 
particular relevance are the finance, global trading, government, and high tech 
sectors. 
b) Diversity in terms of background, nationality, and expertise. 
c) An extensive network of resources, markets and key people specially in Miami, 
Mexico, and Peru 
d) Diverse points of view and alternatives in order to achieve the goals. 
We cannot conclude that possessing a depth of knowledge in business, having a diverse 
background in terms of nationality and expertise, demonstrating an extensive network of 
resources and contacts, and presenting diverse points of view and alternative ideas equate to 
"outstanding achievements." The submitted evidence does not establish that the _advisory 
board requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the beneficiary'S field. Further, the petitioner has not established that the 
••• advisory board is an association in "the field for which classification is sought" as 
mandated by the unambiguous language in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Pages 3 -
5 of the appellate brief from counsel specifically emphasize that the beneficiary works in the 
"newspaper publishing field." The petitioner does not explain how a general school of 
management advisory board equates to an association in the newspaper publishing field. Thus, 
the beneficiary'S advisory board membership does not meet the plain language requirements of 
the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
stating: 
I have the satisfaction to certify that [the beneficiary 1 has been for over a decade an 
important member our commercial and business community. 
* * * 
His support to the community development he [sic 1 has been honored several times, and 
during 2003-2005 he was designated delegate of the Graphic Industrial Sector of our 
institution. 
The record, however, does not include evidence of the membership requirements (such as bylaws 
or rules of admission) for the Quito Chamber of Commerce showing that it requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
Page 14 
beneficiary's field. Further, the petJtlOner has not established that the Quito Chamber of 
Commerce is an association in "the field for which classification is sought" as mandated by the 
unambiguous language in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii). The petitioner does not 
explain how a local chamber of commerce equates to an association in the newspaper publishing 
field. 
In light of the above, 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 classification 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 
beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualifY as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local 
publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality 
but would qualifY as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local 
community papers6 
The petitioner submitted articles appearing in a by the 
beneficiary's family. A September 26, 1994 article in _ entitled is about 
the newspaper in general rather than the beneficiary. The article only mentions the beneficiary's 
name once along with several others at the conclusion of the article. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(iii), however, requires that the published material be "about the alien.',7 Further, the 
author of the material was not identified as required by the plain language of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(iii). 
The petitioner submitted a September 26, 1994 article in _ entitled "Good Business." 
The beneficiary is not mentioned in the article, but he appears in an accompanying photograph 
along with five other individuals. The caption under the photograph does not even identifY the 
beneficiary. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) requires the 
submission of "[p)ublished material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media" including "the title, date, and author of the material." The accompanying 
photograph does not meet these requirements. 
~!!jQ~ submitted a March 21, 2006 article in 
The bem~tjci:ll'] U!~UWJU~U in the mticle 
The caption under the photograph 
6 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. 
7 See, e.g., Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CY-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8,2008) (upholding a finding that 
articles about a show are not about the actor). 
-Page 15 
states: shared the evening with their 
guests." As previously discussed, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires the submission of "[pJublished material about the alien in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media" including "the title, date, and author of the material." The 
accompanymg not meet these requirements. 
section entitled 
The eight-paragraph article includes 
only four sentences mentioning the beneficiary. As previously discussed, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about the alien." Further, the author of the 
material was not identified as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The petitioner submitted another 
entitled' 
in the arLIel" 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
article in the Opinion section of _ 
The beneficiary is not specifically mentioned 
identi1:ied as required by the plain language of 
The petitioner submitted a article in the Opinion section o~ entitled 
"100 years of history." The article includes only two sentences mentioning the beneficiary and is 
about the history of the_newspaper in general rather than the beneficiary and his work. 
Finally, we note that all of the preceding material appeared in a single publication operated by 
the beneficiary's family. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, however, requires the submission of 
extensive evidence. Consistent with that statutory requirement, the plain language of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires material about the beneficiary in more than one major 
publication. 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. Thus, we can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory 
criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret 
significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
certificate from 
stating: "This is to certify that [the beneficiary 1 
at the 
The record, however, does not include any 
The preceding certificate does not specifY the nature 
of the beneficiary's activities as a judge or the names and fields of specification of those he 
evaluated. Merely submitting documentary evidence reflecting that the beneficiary served on a 
jury without evidence demonstrating who he judged is insufficient to establish eligibility for this 
Page 16 
criterion. Moreover, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary judged the work of 
others in the same or allied field of specification. 
In response to the director's reCluest petitioner submitted three notices bearing the 
heading 
2005 states: 
* * * 
The first notice from 
One hundred and six works were submitted for this competition. After rigorous scrutiny, 
the following journalists were declared the winners .... 
The second notice from 2007 states: 
The Organizing Committee under the c.h<li1!~~iQ 
and photographers to in the 
* * * 
One hundred and seven works were submitted for this competition. After rigorous scrutiny, 
the following journalists were declared the winners .... 
The third notice from 2008 states: 
The Organizing Committee under the chllirrnarlship 
and photographers to participate in the 
* * * 
One hundred and fifty-three works were submitted for this competition. After rigorous 
scrutiny, the following journalists were declared the winners .... 
The three preceding notices bearing the address 
chaired the 
pruiici.pation as a Judge of the work of the contestants. 
As previously discussed, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165. The petitioner's response also included photographs of the beneficiary at the 
-
-Page 17 
* * * 
Maintaining this tradition for the past 15 years, 
the person who proclaims and organizes the most 
i~ 
of_ 
competition in Ecuador, as head of the Organizing Committee. From this position it is 
his weighty responsibility to define the profile for the selection of judges, both 
Ecuadorean and international, determine the basic terms of the competition, establish the 
prizes in each category, receive the verdict of the judges and preside over the awards 
ceremony. 
* * * 
The judges include personalities from Ecuadorean and international 
The above document indicates that the beneficiary defines the profile for the selection of judges, 
determines the basic terms of the competition, establishes the prizes in each category, receives 
the verdict of the judges, and presides over the awards ceremony, but there is no documentary 
evidence showing that the beneficiary actually participated as a judge of the work of the 
contestants. 
ncl",-j"cI a document entitled 
The document 
advertising competitIOn organized by but there is no evidence of the 
beneficiary's actual participation, either individually or on a panel, as judge of the work of the 
contestants. For instance, there is no documentary evidence showing the names of the 
advertising contestants whose work he specifically evaluated. As previously discussed, going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. A petition must be 
filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). The 
nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
8 C.F.R. § I03.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner 
demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on 
secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the 
petitioner rely on affidavits. Where a record does not exist, the petitioner must submit an original 
written statement on letterhead from the relevant authority indicating the reason the record does 
not exist and whether similar records for the time and place are available. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1 03.2(b )(2)(ii). 
In light ofthe above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Page 18 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific. scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field 
On appeal, counsel points to the awards received by 
These awards have already been addressed under 
. For' with to the 
as evidence for this criterion. 
capacity to produce newspaper content 
in accordance with ISO standards shows that the newspaper meets certain industry quality 
standards, but there is no evidence that eaming INCQC membership is based on originality or a 
contribution of major significance in the field. Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory 
criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for awards and 
original contributions of major significance in the field, USCIS clearly does not view these 
criteria as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a . meet at least 
three separate criteria. Nevertheless, the submitted documentation pertaining to 
awards does not specify how the beneficiary's contributions were "original" or provide specific 
examples of how his contributions have impacted the field at large. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not 
only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is 
not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major 
significance in the field of newspaper publishing, it can be expected that the beneficiary's 
original work would be demonstrably influential his . In other words, while 
providing sound direction and management operations may contribute 
to that particular company's success, such work is not necessarily either original or a contribution 
of major significance to the newspaper publishing industry at large. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support discussing the beneficiary's work. 
states: 
over the past eighteen years, he has been the leader in 
developing and modernizing our 103 year-old newspaper group. [The beneficiary 1 is a 
highly skilled and distinguished executive, and he is widely recognized by his peers and 
industry leaders, both nationally and internationally, as one of the premier publishing 
executives in Latin America, as well as t~eer in the development of 
both the graphic and business sections of __ newspaper, magazine and 
commercial printing operations in Ecuador. [The beneficiary'S 1 work has encompassed all 
areas of publishing and print media, for which he has received numerous accolades and 
widespread recognition for his unmatched skills and abilities. [The beneficiary 1 is an 
invaluable asset to the publishing industry .... 
does not specifically identify the original pnntmg innovations specifically 
developed by the beneficiary or their impact on the publishing industry. The plain language of 
-Page 19 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the beneficiary'S contributions be "of 
major significance in the field" rather than limited to a single company or employer such as the 
petitioner. While the beneficiary has helped to improve the operations of his family's company, 
there is no evidence showing that his work equates to original business-related contributions of 
major significance in the newspaper publishing industry. 
states: 
when he began being involved with 
[The beneficiary 1 has always showed an 
ability to auto educate himself, particularly in the graphics arts area and the application of 
emerging technologies. Before finishing his undergraduate education in Business, he 
worked as an apprentice at holidays. 
After obtaining his degree in Drew and not having had any formal training in 
graphics arts, he implemented in a common personal computer network -
software and hardware - originally not designed to be used in a newspaper, into a 
prepress workflow. Such integration in his daily local newspaper, was an early version of 
desktop publishing which is now the standard of the industry. 
Though he may not have pioneered this implementation, he was one of the few in the 
region that was successful in the early migration of traditional graphic arts into the digital 
era, working at the time with very limited resources. In the later years [the . 
was able to use the technology to push the limits of color reproduction in 
rotary letterpress. The inking system on letterpress equipment is less precise than on 
offset presses, which can pose problems with some full color graphics and images. By 
overcoming this challenge, he achieved a quality comparable or superior to offset presses 
in that time. With these techniques he was able to broaden the revenue of the company by 
luring advertisers to test full color advertisement, and the industry recognized this 
achievement with awards in quality, given in his category through graphic arts 
associations and manufacturer promoted contests. 
Years later he was able to build a compelling case to why needed to 
upgrade to offset by changing its press of 23 years of use. He designed a unique layout of 
the new offset press maximizing color capabilities, page volume, while minimizing the 
investment. Once the new press was operational in early 1995, the challenge continued to 
push him in applying his skills, so that the available tools would produce exceptional 
results, while maximizing workflow, and broaden the portfolio of products that could be 
marketed to the readers and advertisers. 
* * * 
In the early years of his offset implementation, his work was up to par with the quality of 
most newspapers. Yet, as he perfected his techniques, he obtained his greatest 
Page 20 
times 
As previously discussed, INCQC membership demonstrates the capacity to produce newspaper 
content in accordance with certain ISO standards, but there is no evidence that earning INCQC 
membership is based on originality or a contribution of major significance in the field. _ 
_ states that the beneficiary "was one of the few in the region that was successful in the 
early migration of traditional graphic arts into the digital era," but acknowledges that the 
beneficiary "may not have pioneered this implementation." Further, there is no evidence 
showing that the color reproduction techniques implemented by the beneficiary were either 
original or influential in the newspaper publishing field. 
states that 
entrepreneurs and vIsionary executives in 
newspapering and graphic has been the leader in the 
~and modernization of the 
_ does not provide specific examples of how the beneficiary's contributions were 
original or how they impacted the industry. Once again, a contribution to the beneficiary'S 
employer is not necessarily an original contribution of major significance to the field at large. 
~ executive 
--. I became a"'1u,u",,~,= 
charge of the Production area and then 
~estigious firm which publishes 
publishing company_ 
Ipn,etici~r'v 1 first as the ~~ 
_ In carrying out his pn)fession:ll uUU"', won recognition as a 
successful, serious-minded and responsible leader, attaining a position of distinction 
among Latin American press executives. 
Along with his activities at the group, [the beneficiary] developed various 
highly successful business initiatives in which he distinguished himself by virtue of his 
sense of honesty and proper behavior, as well as his great ability to innovate using new 
digital and communications technologies. 
not specifY the "original" U'"HU' and communications technologies developed 
by the beneficiary or explain how his work has significantly impacted the field 
beyond his proj eets for his immediate employer. 
states: 
friendship with his 
* * * 
Page 21 
imnCl,rt",nt contributions to the modernization of 
the training of its personnel and its 
constructive participation in discussion of the problems of Ecuador. 
__ does not specifically identify the beneficiary's "original" contributions to the 
modernization of_or explain how they constitute contributions of major significance 
in the field at large. 
[the beneficiary 1 as an int,elligerlt, 
distinguished job as 
tradition in compliments the beneficiary's distinguished 
service for but there is no evidence showing that the beneficiary's original work for 
the company equates to original business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the director disregarded the information contained in the letters of 
support. The letters considered above, however, primarily contain bare assertions of widespread 
recognition and vague claims of contributions without specifically identifying "original" 
contributions and providing specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the 
beneficiary's field. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been 
considered above. uscrs may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted 
as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron international, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. id. The submission of letters from experts supporting 
the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; uscrs may evaluate the content of those 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of v­
K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to 
be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content ofthe experts' 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 an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a publishing executive who has made 
original contributions of major significance. Without supporting evidence showing that the 
beneficiary's work equates to original contributions of major significance in his field, we cannot 
conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The aforementioned letters of support and other documentary evidence of record indicate that the 
~rmed in a leading or critical role 
__ The record also demonstrates company a distinguished 
reputation in the newspaper publishing industry based~ards and standing in 
Ecuador. Aside from the beneficiary's leading role for __ the record does not 
include evidence documenting the beneficiary's leading or critical role for any other organizations 
or establishments with a distinguished reputation. As previously discussed, section 203 (b)(1 )(A)(i) 
-Page 22 
of the Act requires the submission of extensive evidence. Consistent with that statutory 
requirement, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) expressly requires evidence that the alien 
has performed in a leading or critical role for "organizations or establishments" in the plural. 
·hprf't:r.rp ~;urr1erltin.g a leading or critical role for only a single distinguished organization,_ 
does not meet the plain language of the regulation. Regarding the beneficiary'S 
employment with other companies, the self-serving claims in his curriculum vitae are not sufficient 
to meet the evidentiary requirements for this criterion. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. In this case, the petitioner has not submitted 
documentary evidence establishing that the other organizations or establishments for which the 
beneficiary has worked have a distinguished reputation. Further, the submitted documentation 
does not establish that the beneficiary was responsible for their success or standing to a degree 
consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role." Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
submitted qualifYing evidence that meets all of the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
,~uuuu~, submitted an April 23, 2009 letter from 
stating: ' 
taxes) for the being the $7027.98 (include taxes) for the advice to the 
Family Council." The preceding monthly payments equate to annual earnings of $317,295.72. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an unsigned copy of 
the beneficiary and his spouse's 2008 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Line 7 of the tax 
return indicates "Wages, Salaries, tips, etc." of $49,008 and line 21 lists "FOREIGN INCOME" 
of $631 ,347. The unsigned U.S. tax return was not accompanied by a Form W-2, Wage and Tax 
Statement, or other official earnings statement showing the income amount attributable to the 
beneficiary versus his spouse. Without a signature on the form affirming that the beneficiary's 
2008 U.S. income tax return is "true, correct, and complete" and an accompanying official 
earnings statement for the beneficiary for 2008 (such as his Form W-2), we cannot conclude that 
the income amount listed on the unsigned tax return is reliable. 
The petitioner's response also included information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 
indicating that the "mean" annual wage for Chief Executives in the newspaper publishing industry is 
$168,060. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), however, requires 
the petitioner to submit evidence showing that the beneficiary has commanded a "high salary" in 
relation to others in the field. Mean wage information is not an appropriate basis for comparison 
in determining a "high salary" or other "significantly high remuneration." In this instance, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary'S above average compensation of $317,295.72 
equates to a "high salary" in relation to that of other publishing executives. The salary 
information submitted by the petitioner from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does not specifY 
what constitutes a high salary in the beneficiary's field, only the average salary. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
-Page 23 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that 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 ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the 
minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualifY as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
C. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we will next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in 
the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(1)(A) ofthe Act; 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-1120. In the present matter, several of the 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)(i) - (v), (viii), and (ix). 
We acknowledge that the beneficiary has helped to improve the operations of _ 
_ We will not, however, infer the individual acclaim _:' __ 11_. 
ascension to the top leadership 
•••••••••••. While has eamed multiple awards and honors as an 
Ecuadoran newspaper, the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary personally has sustained 
national or international acclaim. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. 
Regarding the evidence submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the petItIoner has not 
established that that the U'"'''''-'''.u" selection for the~dvisory Board (AB) in Miami and 
involvement with 
international acclaIm very top 
lists business people who "have been proposed to form part of the AB," (emphasis added) but 
there is no evidence that those listed are actually active members on the board. Nevertheless, the 
submitted evidence does not establish that the_advisory board and the 
••••• require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by rec:og:ni;~ed mliliUJlldl 
or international experts in the beneficiary's field. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), there is no evidence 
showing that the beneficiary has attracted any major media attention beyond the 
newspaper he directly controls. The non-existence of published material about the beneficiary in 
major publications other than_is not consistent with a showing of sustained national 
or international acclaim throughout his field. 
Even if the petitioner were to submit documentary evidence showing that the beneficiary actually 
participated as a judge of the work of the contestants, which it has not, the national or international 
Page 24 
selJ~selrvirlg notices from 2005, 2007 and 2008 
JlI"<:,-m()tional material describing the _ 
indicate that the contest was organized 
do(;uraerltary evidence showing the reputation and 
prestige of the contest beyond uscrs need not rely on self-promotional 
material.8 With regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(iv), the nature of 
the beneficiary'S judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of his recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See 596 F. 3d at 
1122. In the matter the has not established that the 
the latter of which was 
organized by the beneficiary'S company, is indicative of sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Regarding the documentation for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the letters from members of the 
beneficiary's field have been considered in detail above. For the reasons discussed above, these 
letters are primarily conclusory with little explanation as to how the beneficiary's work is original 
and no specific examples of the beneficiary's impact in the field at large. We acknowledge that the 
beneficiary has been an effective publishing executive while working for The 
record, however, lacks evidence that his work in running the company has gru:nered 
national or international acclaim. 
With regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the petitioner submitted 
mean wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that he commands an above 
average salary. The petitioner, however, must submit evidence showing that the beneficiary'S 
salary places him among that small percentage at the very top of the field rather than simply 
above average in his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Mean wage statistics are not an 
appropriate basis for comparison in demonstrating that a salary is indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the beneficiary as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. While the beneficiary has eaJTIed 
the respect and admiration of his references, the evidence of record falls short of demonstrating 
his sustained national or international acclaim. 
III. Conclusion 
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 and 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 a national 
8 See Braga v. Poulos. No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) affd 2009 WL 604888 (9ili Cir. 2009)( concluding 
that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as 
major media). 
Page 25 
or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises. Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 FJd at 683; see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.