dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 1 6 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-
290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:ljwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thankyouq? 
p;:J~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary 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. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). The director found that the petitioner had not established that he is "an individual of 
extraordinary ability." 
Congress set a very high 
benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(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 under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to 
establish the beneficiary's basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and a previously submitted 
letter and requests "an entirely new 
and independent review of the petition." The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. The 
AAO's de novo authority is well recognized by the federal courts. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 
145 (3d Cir. 2004). For the reasons discussed below, upon review of the entire record, the petitioner 
has not established eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability.-- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 723 101
51 
Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. /d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established either 
through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the 
court upheld the 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. 1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." /d. at 1121-22. 
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)." /d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, we will review the evidence under the 
plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. 
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. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[ d]ocumentation of the 
alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field of endeavor." Moreover, it is the petitioner's burden to establish that the evidence meets every 
element of this criterion. 
On aooeal. the oetitioner asserts that his '"Certificate of Appreciation' from the 
constitutes an internationally recognized award." In addition to the 
certificate, the record contains a letter from Director General and Chief Executive 
Officer of thanking the petitioner for his "work on the " 
Contrary to the petitioner's assertion on appeal, the issue is not the title of award. The petitioner did 
not submit any documentary evidence establishing that the certificate is a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence in the field, rather than appreciation for the 
petitioner's contribution to a specific project. Submitting evidence of the petitioner's receipt of a 
prize or award is insufficient to meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
without documentary evidence reflecting that the prize or award is nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor, which, by definition, goes beyond the awarding 
entity. 
Even if the petitioner were to submit supporting documentary evidence showing that the certificate 
meets the elements of this criterion, which he has not, section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act 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)(i) requires receipt of more than one nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. 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 a single instance of service as a judge or a single high salary. 
When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as 
when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of 
"letter(s)." Thus, the 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. Cf Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 
(D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005, at *1, *10 (D. Or. 
Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree 
2 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a 
combination of academic credentials). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[ e ]vidence of the alien's 
participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an 
allied field of specification for which classification is sought." 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that based upon the leadership positions he has held during his 
career, he "routinely judged the work of others in his field." Evidence relating to or even meeting the 
leading or critical role criterion, however, is not presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this 
criterion. If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that the regulation 
views leading roles as a separate evidentiary requirement from judging. To hold otherwise would 
render meaningless the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
The petitioner must submit evidence demonstrating that he participated as a judge of the work of 
others rather than that his responsibilities in a leading role may have required the incidental 
evaluation of the work of others. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging 
capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). It is insufficient 
to meet the plain language of this criterion based on documentation that reflects expected or likely 
job duties of judging unless the petitioner demonstrates that he actually participated as a judge of the 
work of others. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
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. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 
1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2"d Cir. 2003). Any documented contributions 
must rise to the level of original business-related contributions "of major significance in the field." 
While the petitioner asserts that the director's focus on the petitioner's impact in the wider field is 
3 Publication and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence 
that they were of "major significance. " Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9
1
h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 
596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse 
its discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 
1122. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
more appropriate to researchers, regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions 
of major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or 
customers. See Visinscaia v. Beers, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *8 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 
2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not 
demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Although not addressed on appeal, in response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner 
asserted that his "award for contributions to proves that my work was of major significance in 
the field of endeavor." As discussed above, however, the record does not contain any documentary 
evidence to establish the recognition of this award beyond the such that the petitioner has 
established that the certificate was awarded for an original contribution of major significance in the 
field, rather than appreciation for the petitioner's contribution to a specific project. 
In addition, the petitioner's resume and a few of the letters reference the petitioner's work with the 
for the system. 
The record, however, does not contain any evidence from regarding the petitioner's 
position and achievements there, nor does the record contain any evidence which establishes that the 
petitioner's contributions at that agency were original and of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner asserts on appeal that the director did not consider all thirteen of the letters submitted 
with the petition. The director only quoted from a selection of the letters, but concluded that some of 
the letters did not identify any contributions and that none of the letters identified any contributions 
of major significance. Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify 
contributions or provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are 
insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff 'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 
(9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that the "letters 
from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was 
"consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
The evidence must rise to the level of original business-related contributions of major significance 
"in the field." On appeal, the petitioner asserts that his "field is information technology in air 
transport, particularly within ." The petitioner further asserts that "the adjudicator's 
analysis" was flawed because "[i]nternational information technology executives do not 'impact a 
field."' According to the plain language of the regulation, however, beyond demonstrating that the 
petitioner's original contributions have been internationally and nationally recognized, the petitioner 
must establish that his original contributions have been of major significance in the field of 
information technology, and not only to his employer. See Buletini v. INS, 860 F.Supp. 1222, 1229 
(E.D. Mich. 1994) (finding that the alien's field was medical science rather than nephrology). See 
also Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822, at *8. 
Mr. Project Manager for 
"petitioner's achievements benefit[t]ed [] _ 
Indirect Sales Manager for 
for states that the 
bv dramatically increasing its revenue." Mr. 
states that the petitioner's 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
"work is well recognized and very highly respected." ~ _ Operating System's 
Manager at states that the petitioner has "achieved a novel and 
excellent work that has demonstrated his unique ability" and "has been very much appreciated b all 
subsidiaries." The letter also outlines four of the petitioner's projects at 
including migration of 's activities "from batch to ( o ]nline," "changing the mainframe 
generation," "creating a disaster site," and ""the mobile web application of ' Dr. 
Distinguished Professor and former Dean of Engineering for 
__; praises the petitioner's "outstanding knowledge regarding many types of 
software and hardware." Dr. further describes the petitioner's achievements for 
, which include "converting the airline to be web-enabled, designing its new portal, 
developing the self-service booking system, and most recently, using mobile digital devices for self­
service." All of these projects are specific to and the record lacks evidence of the 
significance of these projects in the field as a whole. 
Senior Project Mana~ter at states the petitioner, acting as the 
representative for for the "worked closely with and 
to develop an online Smartphone application which enables the passengers [to] perform[] all 
travel[] related activities ... from their mobile phones" and that this "was a real revolution in the 
[a]irline industry." While Mr. implies a wider impact, USCIS need not 
accept primarily 
conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. United States Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Mr. 
does not explain how the petitioner's work on this project revolutionized the industry as 
claimed. The remaining letters similarly praise the petitioner, calling him an "expert in new 
technologies" and commending him for "his leadership." While the petitioner's references think 
highly of him, none of the thirteen submitted letters or other submitted evidence establishes that his 
contributions are of major significance in the field, rather than his employer, as required by the plain 
language of the regulation. 
Having a lengthy career and expertise in the field are not contributions of major significance in and 
of themselves. Rather, the record must be supported by evidence that the petitioner has already used 
those unique skills to impact the field, and not just his employer, at a significant level in an original 
way. Furthermore, assuming the petitioner's skills are unique, the classification sought was not 
designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In fact, that issue properly falls under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien employment labor certification process. See 
Matter of New York State Dep 't ofTransp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
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; 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"). Even when 
written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a [occupation] who 
has made original contributions of major significance in the field. Cf Visinscaia v. Beers, --- F. 
Supp. 2d ----, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013) (concluding that USCIS' decision to 
give little weight to uncorroborated assertions from professionals in the field was not arbitrary and 
capricious). 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity or detail, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative 
evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established 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. 
Based upon the evidence in the record, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires "[ e ]vidence that the alien has 
commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others 
in the field." A review of the record of proceeding, however, does not reflect that the petitioner 
submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of the 
regulation. 
The record contains two printouts from .com, certified English translations of two 
documents relating to the petitioner's remuneration, without the accompanying document in Arabic, 
and a document signed by prior counsel. 
Regarding the "median salary by job" information for seven occupations from _ .com, this 
information does not identify the high end salaries for those performing work with similar 
responsibilities as the petitioner. According to the information provided, the median salary for an 
Information Technology Manager is 125,766 EGP. The plain language of the regulation requires the 
petitioner to establish that his salary is high when compared to others in the field. As such, the 
median salary information provided does not meet this requirement. Regarding the "personal salary 
report overview," the detailed information on the left hand side is not visible. For example, the "Job 
Offer" title is not visible, nor is information regarding years of experience, etc. Therefore, the details 
upon which the salary comparison is based are not apparent. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
In 2011, the petitioner received 138,494.04 EGP in total income, including 8,447.71 EGP in 
remunerations and profits and 102,673.40 in incentives. As such, any comparison with statistics 
relating to salary only is not a meaningful comparison. Moreover, the petitioner must not only 
submit evidence of remuneration for services, but also submit evidence that his remuneration is 
significantly high when compared to the total remuneration that others in the field receive. 
As previously mentioned, the petitioner did not provide the original documents regarding his total 
remuneration, but only the certified translations. Furthermore, the total claimed remuneration of 
154,000 EGP is based, in part, on a statement from the petitioner's prior counsel. Prior counsel does 
not explain how the additional items are separate from remuneration, profits and incentives. Without 
documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 
1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As the petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is 
that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he satisfies the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
three types of evidence. 
ill. CONCLUSION 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.P.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While we conclude that the evidence 
is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of the field 
or sustained national or international acclaim, we need not explain that conclusion in a final merits 
determination. 4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he has 
satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. at 1122. 
4 
The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 P.3d at 145. In 
any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the Act; 
section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R.§ 2.1 (2003); 
8 C.P.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy 
INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende , 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.