dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
identiíying data deleted to 20 MassachusettsAve., N.w., MS2090
preVentClearlyllnWaTraDied Washington,DC20520090
invasionofpersonalprivacy U.S.Citizenshipand Immigration
PUBLIC COPY Services
DATE: Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
information that you wish to have considered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopenin
accordancewith theinstructionson FormI-2908, Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a feeof $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiledwithin
30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou.
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscas.gov
Page2
DISClJSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrantvisa
petitionon March15,2011. Thepetitioner,whois alsothebeneficiary,appealedthedecisionwith
theAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onApril 14,2011. Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitionerseeksclassificationas an "alien of extraordinaryability" in business,pursuantto
section203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (the Act), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A).
On March 15, 2011,the directordeterminedthat the petitionerhasnot establishedthe sustained
nationalor internationalacclaimnecessaryto qualify for classificationasanalienof extraordinary
ability.
Congressset a very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiring throughthe
statutethat the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim' and
present"extensivedocumentation"of thealien'sachievements.Seesection§ 203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the
Act; 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3). The implementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)statesthatan
alien can establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaim through evidenceof a one-time
achievementof a major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).The
petitionermustsubmitqualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten regulatorycategoriesof
evidenceto establishthebasiceligibility requirements.
Onappeal,counselsubmitsa brief, but no additionalevidence.In hisbrief, counselassertsthatthe
petitionermeetsthe membershipin associationswhich requireoutstandingachievementscriterion
underthe regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii),the publishedmaterialaboutthe alien criterion
underthe regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),the leadingor critical role for organizationsor
establishmentsthat have a distinguishedreputationcriterion under the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii),andthehighsalaryor othersignificantlyhigh remunerationfor servicescriterion
undertheregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,theAAO findsthatthepetitionerhasnotestablishedhiseligibility
for theexclusiveclassificationsought.Specifically,theAAO findsthatthepetitionerhasnotshown
evidenceof a one-timeachievementthat is a major, internationallyrecognizedaward,underthe
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3),or satisfiedat leastthreeof thetenregulatorycriteriaunderthe
regulationsat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such,the AAO finds that the petitionerhasnot
demonstratedthathe is oneof thesmallpercentagewho areat thevery top of thefield andhe has
not sustainednationalor internationalacclaim. See8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly,the
AAO mustdismissthepetitioner'sappeal.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
1. Priority workers. - Visasshall first be madeavailable. . . to qualified immigrants
whoarealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowing subparagraphs(A) through(C):
Page3
(A)Aliens with extraordinaryability. --An alienis describedin thissubparagraphif -
(i) the alien has extraordinaryability in the sciences,arts, education,
business,or athletics which has been demonstratedby sustained
nationalor internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeen
recognizedin thefield throughextensivedocumentation,
(ii) thealienseeksto entertheUnitedStatesto continuework in thearea
of extraordinaryability, and
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill substantiallybenefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and
NaturalizationService(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very high
standardfor individualsseekingimmigrantvisasas aliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723
101stCong., 2d Sess.59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99(Nov. 29, 1991). The term
"extraordinaryability" refersonly to thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento the
verytopof thefield of endeavor.8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien'ssustained
acclaim and the recognitionof his or his achievementsin the field. Such acclaim must be
establishedeither throughevidenceof a one-timeachievement,that is a major, internationally
recognizedaward,or throughthe submissionof qualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten
categoriesof evidencelistedundertheregulationsat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinthCircuit reviewedthedenialof apetitionfiled under
thisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010). Althoughthecourtupheld
the AAO's decisionto denythe petition, the court took issuewith the AAO's evaluationof the
evidencesubmittedto meeta givenevidentiarycriterion.1With respectto thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and (vi), the court concludedthat while USCISmay haveraisedlegitimate
concernsaboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,thoseconcerns
shouldhavebeenraisedin a subsequent"final meritsdetermination."Kazarian,596F.3dat 1121-
22.
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO's evaluationrestedon animproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceaspart of the initial inquiry, the court statedthat "the
properprocedureis to count the typesof evidenceprovided(which the AAO did)," and if the
petitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"the properconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed
Specifically, the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterally imposednovel substantiveor evidentiary requirements
beyondthosesetforth in theregulationsat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi).
Page4
to satisfythe regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)." Kazarian,
596F.3dat 1122(citingto8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approachwhere the evidenceis first countedand then
consideredin the context of a final merits determination. In this case,basedon the evidencein the
record,theAAO finds thatthepetitionerhasnot submittedqualifyingevidenceshowinga one-time
achievementthatis a major,internationallyrecognizedaward,or satisfiedtheantecedentregulatory
requirementof presentingthreetypesof evidenceundertheregulationsat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-
(x). In short,thepetitionerhasnot demonstratedthathe is oneof the smallpercentagewho areat
the very top of the field andhe hasnot achievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaim. See
8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(2), (3).
II. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Underthe regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3),the petitionercan establishsustainednationalor
internationalacclaimandthat his achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of endeavorby
presentingevidenceof a one-timeachievementthatis a major,internationallyrecognizedaward. In
this case,as the petitionerhasnot shownthroughhis evidencethe receiptof suchan award,the
regulationoutlinestencriteria,at leastthreeof which mustbesatisfiedfor thepetitionerto meetthe
basiceligibility requirementsfor thepetition.
Documentationof thealien's membershipin associationsin thefield for whichclassificationis
sought, which require outstanding achievementsof their members,as judged by recognized
national or international expertsin their disciplinesor fields. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
On appeal,counselassertsthat the petitionermeetsthis criterion becausethe petitioner "is currentl
on the Boardof Directorsfor the " andis the
of therotar club,"notjust a meremem er e petitioner'ssupportingdocumentsinclude:
(1) anunsigned certificateof membership,datedApril 19,2010,(2)
theJuly21,2010minutesof therotaryclub'smonthlyboardmeeting,showingthatthepetitioner,as
the articlefrom
asianjournal.com,entitled (4) a July
2010RotaryClub newsletter,(5) lesof hot hs of the etitionerandunnamedindividuals
(6) anAugust5, 2010letter from
of the rotary club, (7) an August4, 2010online printout from rotary.org,relatingto the guiding
principlesof a rotaryclub,and(8) anAugust5, 2010printoutfrom wikipedia.com,entitled"Rotary
International."
2 The petitioner does not claim that the petitioner meetsthe regulatorycategoriesof evidencenot discussedin this
decision.
Page5
Basedon the evidencein the record,the AAO finds that the petitionerhas not shown that his
membershipin the constitutesmembershipin an associationthat
requiresoutstandingachievements. First, the petitioner has not provided any evidence,such as
membershiprequirementsor bylaws,indicatingwhatqualifications,if any,an applicantmustmeet
tobecomeamemberof theorganization.
Second, had the petitioner provided documents showing the organization's membership
requirementsor qualifications, he must also establish that these requirementsand qualifications
includeoutstandingachievements,asjudgedby recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their
disciplinesor fields. Thepetitionerhasfailedtoprovideanysuchevidence.
Third, the petitionerhasnot establishedthroughobjectiveevidencethat he is a memberof the
organization.Specially,the April 2010certificateof membershipis unsigned.As such,theAAO
cannotgive this facially deficientdocumentanyevidentialweight. Althoughthe petitioner'sother
evidenceindicatesthat he- as the - is a boardmemberof the rotary
club,theevidencedoesnot establishthata boardmemberof a rotaryclub mustbea memberof an
association.Indeed,theplainlanguageof thecriterionrequiresthatthepetitionerbea memberof an
association,notaboardmemberof arotaryclub.
Fourth,the plain languageof the criterionrequiresevidenceof membershipin associations,in the
plural,thatrequireoutstandingachievementsof their members.This is consistentwith thestatutory
requirementfor extensivedocumentation.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. As such,evenif
the AAO wereto concludethatthe petitioner'sinvolvementin the rotary club constitutesa single
exampleof hismembershipin anassociationthatrequiresoutstandingachievementsof its members,
the AAO would not concludethat the petitioner has met this criterion, as he has not shown
membershipin asecondsuchassociation.
Finally, as notedin the director'sMarch 15,2011decision,the petitionerhassubmittedevidence
relating to his membershipin other organizations,including the
Onappeal,
however,counselhasnotcontinuedto assertthatthepetitioner'smembershipsin theseorganizations
meetthiscriterion. As such,theAAO concludesthatthepetitionerhasabandonedtheissuerelating
to membershipin theseorganizations,ashedid not timely raiseit on appeal.Sepulvedav. United
StatesA// 'yGen.,401F.3d1226,1228n.2(11thCir. 2005);Hristovv.Roark,No.09-CV-27312011,
2011WL 4711885at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept.30, 2011)(the United StatesDistrict Court foundthe
plaintiff's claimsto beabandonedashefailedto raisethemonappealto theAAO).
Accordingly,theAAO finds thatthepetitionerhasnot presenteddocumentationof his membership
in associationsin the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding
achievementsof their members,asjudgedby recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their
disciplinesor fields. Thepetitionerhasnotmetthiscriterion. See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Page6
Publishedmaterial aboutthe alien in professionalor major tradepublicationsor othermajor
media, relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classification is sought.Suchevidence
shall include the title, date,and author of thematerial, and any necessarytranslation. 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iii).
On appeal,counselassertsthat the petitionermeetsthis criterion becausehe has submitted"an
article acknowledginghis businessaccomplishments." The etitioner's supportingdocuments
include:(1) acopyof anundatedarticle,entitled publishedin Woman,
a weeklymagazinein thePhilippinePost,(2) a copyof thetableof contentsof Woman,listing the
article,(3) anAugust4, 2010onlineprintoutaboutManilaBulletinPublishingCorporation,entitled
(4) anAugust4, 2010onlineprintoutaboutManila StandardToday,and(5) the
petitioner'scurriculumvitae,listinganumberof articlesunder"Recognitions
Basedon theevidencein therecord,theAAO findsthatthepetitionerhasnotshownthattheWoman
article is publishedin a professionalor major tradepublicationor other major media. First, as
initially notedin the director'sJuly 12,2010noticeof intent to deny(NOID), the Womanarticle
"cannot be considereda professionalor major trade publication, or a publication relating to the
alien's work in the specified field." Indeed,other than counselstating that the article is a
"mainstreamarticle"in a magazinethat"is publishedeveryFridayby thePhilippineMediaPost" in
hisAugust9, 2010responseto thedirector'sNOID, neithercounselnor thepetitionerhasprovided
anyobjectiveandindependentevidenceon Woman,suchasinformationrelatingto its reputation,
readershipor geographicreach. Goingon recordwithout supportingdocumentaryevidenceis not
sufficientfor the purposesof meetingtheburdenof proof in theseproceedings.Matter ofSoffici,
22I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc.Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California,
14I&N Dec.190(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)).
Second,evenif theAAO wereto concludethatthe Womanarticleis publishedin a professionalor
majortradepublicationor othermajormedia,the AAO would not find that the petitionerhasmet
thiscriterion. Theplain languageof thecriterionrequiresevidenceof qualifyingpublishedmaterial
in professionalor major tradepublications, in the plural, or other major media. This is consistent
with thestatutoryrequirementfor extensivedocumentation.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct.
As such,evenif the AAO were to find that the petitionerhaspresenteda singleexampleof a
qualifying publishedmaterial,the AAO nonethelesswould find that the evidencelacksa second
suchexample.
Third, althoughin his August9, 2010responseto the director'sNOID, counselassertedthat the
petitioner meetsthis criterion basedon articles publishedin EntrepreneurMagazine,Manila
StandardNewspaperandManila Bulletin, counselhasnot presentedanyevidenceestablishingthe
publicationof thesearticles. Indeed,counselacknowledgedthat "due to the passingof time, [the
petitioner]haslostall copiesof [thearticles]." Thepetitioner'scurriculumvitae,listinganumberof
articlesthatallegedlyfeaturedhim, is self-servingandinsufficientto establishthepublicationof the
articles. USCISneednot rely on self-promotionalmaterial. SeeMatter of Soffici, 22I&N Dec.at
165(citingMatterof TreasureCraft of California, 14I&N Dec.at 190). Theregulationat8 C.F.R.
Page7
§ 103.2(b)(2)providesthat the non-existenceor otherunavailabilityof requiredevidencecreatesa
presumptionof ineligibility. Thesameregulationprovidestheprocedurefor documentingthenon-
existenceor unavailabilityfor requiredevidenceand the requirementsfor submittingsecondary
evidenceor affidavits. The petitionerdid not comply with that regulationor submit secondary
evidenceor affidavits.
Finally,notwithstandingcounsel'sassertionsin hisAugust9,2010responseto thedirector'sNOID,
on appealcounselhasnot continuedto assertthatarticles,otherthanthe Womanarticle,meetthis
criterion. As such,the AAO concludesthat the petitionerhasabandonedthe issuerelatingto the
otherarticles.Sepulveda,401F.3dat 1228n.2;Hristov, 2011WL 4711885at *9.
Accordingly,the AAO finds that the petitionerhasnot presentedpublishedmaterialabouthim in
professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia,relatingto his work in the field for
which classification is sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributionsof major significancein thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).
Althoughwhencounselinitially filed thepetitionon March11,2010,heassertedthatthepetitioner
meetsthis criterion,counseldid not continuethis assertionin his August9, 2010responseto the
director'sNOID andhassimilarlyfailed to do soon appeal.Accordingly,theAAO concludesthat
thepetitionerhasabandonedthis issue,ashedid not timely raiseit on appeal.Sepulveda,401F.3d
at 1228n.2;Hristov.2011WL 4711885at *9.
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or
establishmentsthat havea distinguishedreputation. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
On appeal,counselassertsthat the petitionermeetsthis criterion becauseof his "role as of
manyreputableinternationalcompanies"and"his appointmentas
' Thepetitioner'ssupportingdocumentsinclude:
1. thepetitioner'scurriculumvitae,indicatinghisroleasthepresidentof threeUnitedStates
companiesandtwo Filipino companies;
2. documents relating to a U.S. company named
includingthecertificateof incorporation,anInternalRevenueServiceletterregardingthe
company'semployeridentificationnumber,an onlineprintoutdescribingthe company,
organizationalcharts,andabusinessplan;
3. documentsrelating to a U.S. companynamed including the
articlesof incorporation,an Internal RevenueServiceform regardingthe company's
employer identification number, a 2009-2010 business license certificate, and
promotionalmaterial;
Page8
4. documentsrelatingto a U.S. companynamed , including the
articlesof incorporation,promotionalmaterial,a May 27, 2010letterfrom California's
Departmentof SocialServicesregardinganapplicationfor acommunitycarelicense,and
facilitiesfloor plan;and
5. documentsrelatingto a Filipino companynamed includinga
certificateof incorporation,thearticlesof incorporation,thebylaws,generalinformation
sheets,the petitioner's descriptionof his role in the company,2006-2008audited
financialstatementsandothertax-relateddocuments,anda November5, 2005
presentedto thepetitionerandthecompany.
Basedon the evidencein the record,the AAO finds that the petitionerhasnot shownthat he has
performedin a leadingor critical role for anyorganizationor establishmentthathasa distinguished
reputation. First, althoughthe petitionerhassubmittedevidenceshowingthat he was or is the
presidentof five companies,he hasnot submittedevidencethatanyof thesecompaniesconstitute
organizationsor establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.Evidencethata companyhas
conductedbusiness- and in the caseof , hasconductedbusinesswith
somelevel of success- is insufficientto showthat it is an organizationor establishmentwith a
distinguishedreputation. Notably,the"aboutus" sectionfrom theNew York based
statesonly thatthecompany'svision is to bea world classorganizationandit
"would like to bea leaderin the field of creatingbusinessopportunities." This languagedoesnot
su st the company already enjoys a distinguishedreputation. Similarly, while the "Mr.
article reflects that operatesmultiple locations,not every
companyable to open multiple branchesnecessarilyenjoys a distinguishedreputation. The
petitionerhassubmittedno objectiveandindependentevidence,suchasarticlesfrom a professional
or trade publication or reporting from major media, that shows any of the five companies
reputation,let aloneadistinguishedreputation.
Second,theevidencefails to establishthatthepetitioner'sroleasth or
boardmemberconstituteseithera leadingor critical role for the
Specifically, althoughcounselassertedin his August 9, 2010 responseto the director's NOID that
thepetitioner"is critical in coordinatinginternationalmatters"of the rotary club, thereis insufficient
evidencein the record showing what the petitioner actually does for the rotary club or the
internationalmatterswith which the rotary club is involved. Neither the documentsrelating to the
rotaryclub nor the August5, 2010letterfrom shedlight on the
petitioner'sdutiesandobligationsin theorganization.As such,evenif theAAO wereto conclude
thattherotaryclub is anorganizationor establishmentthathasa distinguishedreputation,it would
not find that the petitioner has performeda leading or critical role for the organizationor
establishment.
Finally,evenif theAAO wereto find thatthepetitionerhasperformeda leadingor critical role for
therotaryclub andthatthe rotaryclub enjoysa distinguishedreputation,it would not find thatthe
petitionerhasmet this criterion. The plain languageof the criterion requiresevidencethat the
petitionerhasperformeda qualifying role for organizationsandestablishments,in the plural, that
Page9
have a distinguished reputation. This is consistentwith the statutory requirement for extensive
documentation.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act. As such,had the AAO found that the
petitionerhadpresentedonesuchexamplein his role for the rotaryclub, the AAO would not find
thattheevidenceestablishesthathehasperformeda qualifyingrole for a secondsuchorganization
or establishment.
Accordingly,theAAO findsthatthepetitionerhasnotpresentedevidencethathehasperformedin a
leadingor critical role for organizationsor establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.The
petitionerhasnotmetthiscriterion. See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii).
Evidencethatthealienhascommandeda highsalaryor othersignificantlyhighremunerationfor
services,in relationto othersin thefield. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
On appeal,counselassetsthatthepetitionermeetsthis criterionbecausethe petitioner'sincomein
2009wasapproximately$96,000.Thepetitioner'ssupportingdocumentsinclude:(1) a 2008online
pressrelease,entitled " (2) the
petitioner'stax-relateddocumentsfor 2009,(3) thepetitioner'spayslipsfrom July 2009to January
2010,(4) anonlineprintoutfrom Yahoo!Finance,indicatingthatthepetitioner's2009incomewas
equivalentto $92,434.17,and(5) a May 28, 2007onlinearticlefrom TheEconomicTimes,entitled
Basedon theevidencein therecord,theAAO finds thatthepetitionerhasnot shownthathis salary
constitutesa high salaryor othersignificantlyhigh remunerationfor services. First, althoughthe
petitionerassertsthat his 2009salarywas4,160,000in PhilippinePeso,he hasnot establishedthe
propervalueof thisamountin U.S.dollars. Specifically,theYahoo!Financeprintoutrelatesto the
two currencies'exchangerateon August5, 2010,not 2009,whenthepetitionerreceivedthesalary.
Also, the petitionerhasnot providedany evidencerelatingto the reliability of the exchangerate
reportedon Yahoo!Finance.
Second,the pressreleaserelatesto averageFilipino family incomeanddoesnot providea useful
comparisonfor highsalariesin thepetitioner'sfield. TheTheEconomicTimesarticleis insufficient
to showthe averagesalaryin 2009of othersin the petitioner'sfield. Specifically,the articlewas
publishedin 2007. As such,theAAO lackstherelevantdatafor 2009. Moreover,thepetitionerhas
not providedany evidencerelating to the reliability of the information reportedin the article.
Furthermore,the article statesthat CEOsin the Philippines"receive[d]an averagebasesalaryof
$44,496and$51,519in annualcashon average,"for a total of $96,015.This amountis morethan
thepetitioner'ssalaryin 2009.
Third, even if the AAO finds that the article establishesthe averagesalaryof a CEO in the
Philippinesin 2009,theAAO wouldnot find thatthepetitionerhasmetthis criterion. Specifically,
evidenceof the averagewagein an occupationdoesnot demonstratewhat a high wageis in that
occupation. Merely documentingwagesabovethe averagewagein the occupationis insufficient
Page10
evidenceunderthe plain languagerequirementsof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix),
whichrequiresevidenceof ahighsalaryin relationto othersin thefield.
Accordingly,theAAO finds thatthepetitionerhasnot presentedevidencethathehascommandeda
high salaryor othersignificantlyhigh remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin the field.
Thepetitionerhasnotmetthiscriterion. See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix).
B. Summary
TheAAO concurswith thedirector'sfinding thatthe petitionerhasfailed to satisfytheantecedent
regulatoryrequirementof presentingat leastthreeof ten typesof evidencerequiredunder the
regulationsat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
III. CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstrate
that the alien has achievedsustainednational or internationalacclaimand is one of the small
percentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.
Had the petitionersubmittedthe requisiteevidenceunderat leastthreeevidentiarycategories,in
accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next stepwould be a final merits determinationthat
considersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a
"level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento the
very top of the field of endeavor,"and (2) "that the alien hassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthathis or his achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(2)and(3); seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20. While theAAO concludesthatthe
evidenceis not indicativeof a levelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmallpercentageat thevery top
of thefield or sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO neednotexplainthatconclusion
in a final meritsdetermination.3Rather,the properconclusionis that the petitionerhasfailed to
satisfy the antecedentregulatory requirement of presenting at least three types of evidence.
Kazarian, 596 F.3dat 1122.
The petitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the Act and the
petitionmaynotbeapproved.
TheAAO maintainsdenovoreviewof all questionsof factandlaw. SeeSoltanev.Dep't offustice, 381F.3d143,145
(3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdiction to conducta final meritsdeterminationas
theoffice that madethe lastdecisionin this matter. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii);seealso INA §§ 103(a)(1),204(b); DHS
DelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch1,2003);8C.F.R.§2.1(2003);8C.F.R.§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003);Matterof
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec.458, 460 (BIA 1987)(holding that legacyINS, now USCIS,is the soleauthoritywith the
jurisdiction to decidevisapetitions).
Page11
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner. Section291of
the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Here,the petitionerhasnot sustainedthat burden. Accordingly, the
appealwill bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.