dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdmrnzstrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
identifying data deleted to 
prevenr ,-learl y ~wamnted 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
invasio,. ; i. 2 .:rcona! privacy 
mEC COPY 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
c SRC 07 138 54094 
NOV 0 2 2009 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. €j 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
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. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A). 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. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we 
uphold the director's finding that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that 
an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise 
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a micro 
entrepreneur. According to page 14 of Entrepreneurship, submitted by the petitioner, Philippine 
enterprises are classified as micro, small, medium and large, with micro enterprises having assets of up 
to 3 million pesos and one to nine employees. Thus, while we do not contest that, according to page 15 
of the same publication, micro businesses employ 37 percent of Filipinos, we will not narrow the 
petitioner's occupation to micro-scale business operators. Rather, the petitioner must compare with the 
most experienced and renowned entrepreneurs nationally, including those who have created large 
enterprises. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner asserted 
that his "Special Award for Product Innovation" awarded by Citigroup at the 2006 Microentrepreneur 
of the Year Awards in Manila. serves as a one-time achievement. The director considered this award to 
be a lesser nationally or internationally recognized award. On appeal, counsel does not challenge the 
conclusion that the award does not rise to the level of a major internationally recognized award. 
Congress' example of a one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. 
 H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 
(September 19, 1990). 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). Significantly, 
even a lesser internationally recognized award could serve to meet only one of the ten regulatory 
criteria, of which an alien must meet at least three. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(i). The selection of Nobel 
Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is made from an international pool of potential awardees, 
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 considerable cash prize. Whlle 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. As the petitioner was only selected from a national 
pool of microentrepreneurs rather than an international pool of entrepreneurs, the Citigroup award 
cannot serve as a one-time achievement. 
Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. As stated above, the director concluded that the petitioner meets the lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(i). Thus, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that he meets an additional two criteria. The petitioner has submitted 
evidence that, he claims, meets the following additional criteria under 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3).' 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classijkation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from the Opportunity Microfinance Bank congratulating him on 
his receipt of the Special Award for Product Innovation. The petitioner asserts in a self-serving caption 
that this certificate evidences his membership in the Maunlad Group of the Opportunity Microfinance 
Bank. A separate caption asserts that this evidence serves to meet this criterion. 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'r. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
In resDonse to the director's reauest for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a December 21, 
2007 'certification" from of the Center for Small ~ntre~reneuri 
(CSE), advising that the petitioner "has completed the Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Team Formation 
Sessions and is a member of [the] Ka-Entrep Program" at the CSE. asserts that this program 
prepares participants for membershi in the Ka-Entrep Micro and Small Entrepreneurs Organization of 
the Philippines. According to this organization promotes the rights, welfare and interests of 
micro and small entrepreneurs and seeks to empower and strengthen those entrepreneurs to enable them 
to enhance and grow. While asserts that the petitioner has contributed to the CSE and the 
Ka-Entrep program, she does not suggest that "membership" in CSE's Ka-Entrep program is limited to 
those with outstanding achievements as judged by national or international business experts. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not provided evidence of CSE's admission requirements 
for the Ka-Entrep program. On appeal, counsel does not challenge this conclusion. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires membership in an association that requires 
outstanding achievements of its members as judged by national or international experts in the field. 
The first requirement is that the petitioner document "memberships." The certificate from the Maunlad 
Group of the Opportunity ~icrofinance Bank is not a membership document and does not reference the 
petitioner's membership with the group. Whileuses the word "membership," the content of 
the letter suggests that this "membership" is actually participation in a professional development 
program. 
Second, the petitioner must establish that he is a member of an "association." The "certificate" from 
does not suggest that the petitioner is a member of CSE. Rather, she asserts that he is a 
member of the Ka-Entrep program which "prepares micro-entrepreneurs to become members of the 
Ka-Entrep Micro and Small Entrepreneurs Organization of the Philippines." "Membership" in a 
program rather than an association cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
Third, the petitioner must establish that the association requires outstanding achievements of its 
members. Even assuming that the petitioner's participation in the Ka-Entrep program at CSE led to his 
membership in the Ka-Entrep Micro and Small Entrepreneurs Organization of the Philippines, the 
record contains no evidence regarding the membership criteria for this organization. 
Finally, the petitioner must establish that the association of which he is a member utilizes nationally or 
internationally recognized experts to evaluate membership candidates. Even assuming that the 
petitioner is a member of the Ka-Entrep Micro and Small Entrepreneurs Organization of the 
Philippines, the petitioner has not documented the membership process for the organization. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien S work in the field for which classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he is listed on page 129 of Stories of Entrepreneurial Greatness 
published by the Center for Small Entrepreneurs, Inc. The petitioner asserts in a self-serving caption 
that this book is a reference book for business management students. As stated above, going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). The petitioner also submitted a June 21, 2004 article purportedly in 
the People S Journal about his business, including his expandable dm covers that prevent dengue 
fever by serving as a lid for possible mosquito breeding grounds. The petitioner asserts that this 
newspaper has a national circulation. The copy of this article submitted subsequently reveals that it 
actually appeared in People's Tonight. In addition, the petitioner submitted a copy of a brief 2006 
article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer reporting the Citigroup Microentrepreneur of the Year 
awardees. A self-serving caption states that the newspaper has nationwide circulation. Finally, the 
petitioner submitted a 2006 article in the Philippine News about a business fair that mentions the 
petitioner's presentation at that fair. The petitioner resubmitted these materials in response to the 
director's request for additional evidence. 
The director noted that the petitioner had not documented the circulation of the above media and 
concluded that the materials were not indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner was featured in two articles, a national television broadcast 
and a national radio broadcast. 
The petitioner submits material from an Internet Philippine media guide. The guide lists both the 
People's Journal and People S Tonight as local capital region newspapers. The materials from the 
journal group's website, submitted by the petitioner, indicate that the online Journal includes the 
Philippines biggest group of daily tabloids including the People 's Journal and People 's Tonight but do 
not provide any information about the circulation of People's Tonight individually. The petitioner also 
submitted materials from the Philippine Daily Inquirer's website indicating that it is the country's 
"most widely read and circulated newspaper" with 2.7 million readers daily and a market share of over 
50 percent. The petitioner also submits a translation of a radio interview, a DVD of a televised field 
news story that features the construction of foldable Christmas lanterns sold by the petitioner as well as 
a discussion of his drum covers. The petitioner further submitted evidence about the nationwide scope 
of ABS-CBN broadcasting and DZMM TeleRadyo but no evidence regarding the popularity of the 
individual shows that featured the petitioner. Moreover, the Mondo Times website materials submitted 
indicate only that DZMM 630, is "one of the most listened to radio stations in metro Manila." There is 
no evidence that the petitioner's radio interview was broadcast nationally rather than locally on DZMM 
630. Finally, the petitioner submitted a December 2006 article in the Philippine Star about the 
GoNegosyo expo, noting the petitioner's attendance. 
At issue are whether the published materials are "about" the petitioner relating to his work and whether 
they appeared in professional or major trade journals or other major media. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
It cannot be credibly asserted that the articles about trade fairs or award competitions noting the 
petitioner's attendance, participation or receipt of an award are "about" the petitioner. Thus, the 
materials in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the Philippine News and the Philippine Star cannot serve to 
meet the plain language of this criterion. 
The petitioner's business history is included in Entrepreneurship as one of 22 "aspirants" following the 
biographies of seven "role models." The booklet was self-published by the CSE in 2006 to "celebrate 
entrepreneurial successes and to inspire readers to venture into entrepreneurship and support the 
struggles of the micro entrepreneurs." The booklet contains no ISBN or ISSN number, suggesting that 
it is an internal promotional booklet rather than a commercially available publication. Without 
additional information regarding the distribution or circulation of this booklet or other comparable 
evidence, we cannot conclude that it constitutes a professional or major trade journal or other major 
media. 
As stated above, while DZMM as a company broadcasts throughout the Philippines, DZMM 630 is a 
local Manila station. The television broadcast, while in a foreign language for which the petitioner has 
not submitted a translated transcript, appears to be about two products sold by the petitioner's company 
rather than about the petitioner relating to his work. Moreover, the petitioner has not demonstrated the 
scope or popularity of the program that included the field story. Thus, the broadcast media coverage of 
the petitioner or his work cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
Finally, the 2004 article in People S Tonight about his business includes sufficient information about 
the petitioner to be considered to be "about" the petitioner. The article, however, appears to be part of a 
full-page "Feature" on CSE as the entire page promotes CSE programs, highlighting those who have 
benefited from CSE loans or other assistance. While the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires evidence of the author of the material, no author is listed for the piece about the petitioner's 
business. The record lacks evidence that this article represents independent journalistic coverage of the 
petitioner rather than a press-release-type promotion or even a paid advertisement by CSE to highlight 
those who have benefited fiom its services as a promotion of those services. In context, this coverage 
is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in thejeld. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a 1999 Philippine copyright certificate for a batyaldnun cover. The 
petitioner included a caption stating that this product "prevented the spread of dengue and malaria 
carrying mosquitoes." The petitioner also submitted a 2005 Philippine copyright certificate for a 
disposable toilet seat cover. Finally, the petitioner submitted a 2005 Philippine Certificate of 
Registration registering "Pipay" as a trademark issued to the petitioner doing business as JRO 
Enterprises. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted the "certification" 
from 
 referenced above. She lists several contributions to the CSE and Ka-Entrep Program 
but does not provide any examples of the petitioner's impact in the field of entrepreneurship at the 
national level. The petitioner also submitted a letter fiomfor the 
Philippine Department of Trade and Industry. The letter advises that the petitioner participated in the 
2003 Barakalan marketing event to exhibit and showcase the "finest products and craftsmanship of 
Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) from Region IV-Calabarzon and Mimaropa." 
The director concluded that the record did not establish a contribution of major significance such that 
the petitioner had influenced the field at the national level. On appeal, counsel asserts that the 
petitioner's influence in the field is evidenced by his copyright for a product that can prevent the spread 
of dengue fever, the inclusion of the petitioner's work at a national trade show as evidenced by the 
letter fiom contributions to CSE as evidenced by 'certification," inclusion in 
CSE's book and the interest of "non-affiliated" companies in utilizing the petitioner's services as a 
business coach. 
Counsel is not persuasive. 
 According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 entrepreneurship, it can be expected that the 
petitioner would be able to document not only recognition but a demonstrable influence at the 
national level. 
Regarding the copyright certificates, as stated above, this office has previously stated that a different 
intellectual property right, a patent, is not necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some 
degree of influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N 
Dec. 21 5,221 n. 7, (Cornrn'r. 1998). Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on 
a case-by-case basis. Id. While the record contains references to the drum cover's sales, the 
development of a marketable product is a necessity as an entrepreneur rather than a contribution of 
major significance to the field of business. The record contains no health agency confirmation that 
dengue fever incidence has decreased in the Philippines or even in areas where the petitioner shows 
strong sales. Regardless, the petitioner seeks to work as a business coach in the United States. Even if 
we were to conclude that the drum cover were a medical or engineering contribution of major 
significance, and we do not, it does not reflect on the petitioner's contributions to entrepreneurship in 
the Philippines. The record contains no evidence that his copyright certificates are used as a business 
model in business schools or comparable evidence of the certificates' significance to the business 
world. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the 
final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. 
USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). 
Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than 
new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained 
national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that 
acclaim. Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues or letters that do not specifically identify 
contributions or how those contributions have influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 2009 WL 2836453, *5 (9th Cir. 2009). 
The petitioner's participation in the 2003 regional trade show is not indicative of a contribution of 
major significance. For example, the record contains no evidence that participants are either required to 
demonstrate past influence or typically influence attendees from across the nation. Rather, it is a 
regional marketing event for those who sell marketable products. 
Ms. Hizon's letter is equally insufficient. She lists the following contributions to the CSE: 
Contributing articles to the CSE's magazine EntrePinoy, 
Being featured in the People 's Journal (actually People's Tonight), 
Being featured in CSE's book Entrepreneurship, 
Representing CSE and the Ka-Entrep Program as a resource radio speaker and 
Being CSE's featured entrepreneur on a television broadcast. 
The regulations contain separate criteria for published material about the petitioner, 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and scholarly articles by the petitioner, 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We are not 
persuaded that evidence submitted to meet those criteria is presumptive evidence to meet this criterion. 
To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the 
regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. See also Kazarian, 2009 
WL 2836453 at *6 (publications and presentations are insufficient absent evidence that they constitute 
contributions of major significance). 
The fact that the petitioner is a successful recipient of CSE assistance and, thus, is promoted as one of 
their aspirants, does not demonstrate that he has personally contributed to the process of 
entrepreneurship in the Philippines at the national level. For example, the record contains no evidence 
that the petitioner's business is commonly used as a case study in Philippine business or engineering 
schools or comparable evidence of his influence. 
While the petitioner's published article may provide useful information to new micro entrepreneurs, it 
includes only the most basic information about the value of securing and respecting intellectual 
property rights. The record lacks evidence that this article constitutes a contribution of major 
significance to intellectual property law understanding or utilization in the Philippines. 
Finally, the fact that the petitioner is able to produce examples of U.S. businesses interested in his 
services demonstrates only that he would be capable of earning a living in his field in the United States 
and is not evidence of his past contributions of major significance in the United States or the 
Philippines. 
In light of the above, while the petitioner was clearly able to develop a successful company from a 
small investment, an ability to earn a profit and expand as an entrepreneur is not a contribution of major 
significance to the field as a whole. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in profissional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted his article about 
the value of intellectual property in a 2004 edition of EntrePinoy, published by the CSE. Rather than 
providing a scholarly analysis of the complexities of intellectual property law, the petitioner lists the 
basic types of intellectual property protections and provides cautionary tales of those who failed to 
secure or respect intellectual property rights. The director concluded that the record lacked evidence of 
the significance of this article. 
On appeal, counsel does not challenge this conclusion. The record lacks any evidence about the 
distribution of EntrePinoy or its impact. For example, there is no evidence that it is carried by a variety 
of business schools in the Philippines. Thus, the record does not establish that the petitioner's article 
appeared in a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a book of exhibitors at Barakalan 2003. The petitioner's products are 
listed as foldable lanterns, drum covers and ironing boards. As stated above, in response to the 
director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from confirming 
the petitioner's participation in this regional exhibit. 
The director concluded that this criterion relates to the visual arts and, regardless, the petitioner had not 
demonstrated the exclusive nature of the exhbition. Counsel does not contest this conclusion on 
appeal. We concur with the director that this criterion is limited to those working in the visual arts. 
Moreover, the evidence is not comparable to the exclusive exhibitions that might serve to meet this 
criterion for a visual artist pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(4). The exhibit was designed for 
entrepreneurs to market their products rather than as an exhibition designed to showcase the petitioner's 
work. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as an 
entrepreneur to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a microentrepreneur, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements 
set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.