dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

identifiing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac) 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
5\ U.S. Citizenship 
PUBLK: COPY 
LIN 08 032 52666 
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. § 1 1 53(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. fj 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. tj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
p~!xAJi!nd- Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The emplo yment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Raytheon Company, provides scientific and 
professional services for defense and commercial customers worldwide. It seeks to classify 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 the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary has earned 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to 
demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets 
at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The director also found that the 
petitioner had not demonstrated the beneficiary's eligibility through the submission of comparable 
evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(4). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner submitted comparable evidence of the beneficiary's 
extraordinary ability in the form of reference letters pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
0 204.5(h)(4). 
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, 
60898-99 (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. 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting 
Page 3 
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): 
Initial evidence: A petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by 
evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. Such evidence shall include 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award), or at 
least three of the following: 
(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 a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification 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 exhbitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed 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 performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) provides: "If the above standards do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility." 
This petition, filed on October 17, 2007, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with 
"extraordinarv abilitv in business as it relates to the SlOOOD standard as part of military logistic 
support as a ~enio; Technical Support Engineer 11." Technical 
Development, Raytheon Technical Service Company (RTSC), LLC, states: 
As part of logistics support of major Raytheon programs, RTSC produces, markets and 
supports a number of software tools that store and process information relating to the design 
and through life support of military and commercial hardware. This overarching processes 
[sic] is termed Integrated Logistic Support. The software tools support international business 
processes that are published as either national or international standards. The use of standards 
to define the business processes allows common data to be processed by many different 
companies around the globe. This allows reuse of data reducing costs to the manufacturers 
and the military or commercial end-users. 
Published standards used by Integrated Logistics Support communities include the 
Aeropsace and Defense Industries (ASD) S 1 OOOD specification. 
ASD S1000D is a comprehensive technical publications specification covering all aspects of 
creating, maintaining and publishing a technical information dataset or manual. Web 
technology and graphics standards are included as well as a capability to integrate with other 
standards based processes used in project procurement . . . . 
The SlOOOD specification for technical publications utilizes a common source database, and 
has been produced to establish standards for the documentation of any civil or military 
vehicle or equipment. It is based on international standards such as SGMLtXML and COM 
for production and use of electronic documentation. 
The SlOOOD specification describes how technical manual data is coded in extensible 
Markup Language (XML) format and held in a database. The data can be linked and 
exchanged with other databases such as the military Logistics Support Analysis Record 
(LSAR). Raytheon has developed an LSAR fi-om which technical documentation data can be 
Page 5 
automatically populated with maintenance instructions, parts, tools, manpower requirements, 
etc., as they are identified by maintenance task analysis. 
describes the beneficiary's job duties as follows: 
As Senior Technical Support Engineer II, the Beneficiary will perform the following job 
duties: He will provide training both locally and on user premises on the various Raytheon 
software products including iLog (Eagle, Aspect and Acquired) and MMIS (Performance 
Based Logistics management tool). Training will include the iLog process of generating Data 
Modules fi-om a Logistics Support Analysis (LSA) database and the management of the Data 
Module Requirements Lists (DMRLs). He will Wher provide Management Consultancy and 
training services to contractors on the implementation of ASD [Aerospace and Dense 
Industries] SlOOOD to meet their contractual requirements. This will include advice on 
contracting for S1000D deliverables, generation of program specific business rules, guidance 
on SlOOOD implementation and the generation of the DMRLs. The Beneficiary will also 
conduct in house training to Raytheon on the contracting for ASD SlOOOD and the 
implementation of the specification in response to customers placing requests for proposals 
or contracts with Raytheon or its partners and sub-contractors. He now represents Raytheon 
on the ASD SlOOOD Implementation Guidance and Business Rules Working Group, the 
S 1 OOOD Electronic Publications Working Group (EPWG) and the United States S 1 OOOD 
Specification Implementation Group (USSIG) in support of the ongoing development of the 
specification by the Technical Publications Specification Management Group (TPSMG). He 
will assist with marketing activities for Raytheon Technical Services products and services at 
national and international events. He will mher produce user documentation for the 
Raytheon software products generated to the requirements of ASD S 1000D and provide other 
assistance on the use of the Raytheon products and S1000D implementation to existing and 
future customers. 
In a declaration accompanying the petition, the beneficiary states: "My 27 years service with the 
UK [United Kingdom] military as an avionics engineer and logistician gives me a tremendous 
insight into the requirements of the end user, maintainers and operators as it relates to the S1000D 
standard." 
In response to the director's request for evidence and again on appeal, the petitioner argues that the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation. 
According to Part 6 of the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, and the description of 
the beneficiary's duties provided by the petitioner, the beneficiary's occupation is a technical support 
engineer. Further, the declaration fi-om the beneficiary cites his past experience as an avionics 
engineer and logistician. Moreover, according to and the other witnesses of record, 
SlOOOD is a "specification for technical publications" rather than a distinct occupation or field of 
endeavor. While the beneficiary possesses knowledge of the SlOOOD standard as part of integrated 
or military logistic support, the evidence of record clearly identifies his present occupation as a 
technical support engineer. 
Page 6 
In a declaration submitted in response to the director's request for evidence, states: 
The field of the Beneficiary's extraordinary ability in business relates to the S1000D standard 
as part of integrated logistic support. In this field, there are no national or international 
awards, nor are there published materials in scholarly publications about the Beneficiary or 
any top level military-related person in the field for that matter, nor is there participation in 
judging the work of others in the field, nor is there original scientific, or scholarly published 
contributions, nor is there display of the alien's work at artistic exhibitions or showcases, nor 
is there a high salary, nor evidence of the Beneficiary's commercial success to show. The 
United States Department of Defense, the Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom, and 
United States military contractors would prefer to keep what specific information that may 
relate to any of the foregoing categories - even if they could apply - at the very least, 
proprietary. 
We at Raytheon are a United States military defense contractor. Our job is to supply 
equipment and systems to assist the United States Department of Defense protect and defend 
the United States of America. As such, we assert that the 10 criteria do not readily apply to 
the Beneficiary's occupation in his work with the S1000D standard, and we urge USCIS to 
accept the submitted, additional comparable evidence to establish the Beneficiary's 
eligibility. 
attempts to narrowly define the beneficiary's field as "the SlOOOD standard as part of 
integrated logistic support." While engineering or integrated logistics support may constitute fields of 
endeavor in science or business, the record does not establish that the SlOOOD standard constitutes a 
distinct field or an occupation. Rather, S 1000D is a standard "specification for technical publications" 
pertaining to documentation for vehicles and equipment. The self-serving nature of -1 
comments is not sufficient to establish that the ten criteria at 8 
apply to the beneficiary's occupation." 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(4). 
evidence or independent source upon which his opinions are comments 
do not specifically address why the "high salary" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(ix) or the 
"leading br critical role" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3 viii do not apply to the beneficiary's 
work in the aerospace and defense industries. For instance, ) contention that a high salary 
is not applicable to engineers or management consultants employed by a corporation such as Raytheon 
is not persuasive. 
then raises the issue of the proprietary nature of the defense contracting business. We 
note, however, that the statute and regulations require "extensive documentation" of "sustained 
national or international acclaim" for recognized achievements in the field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). letter does not 
explain how the beneficiary was purportedly able to achieve sustained national or international acclaim 
if the documentation regarding his achievements consisted of closely held proprietary and confidential 
material. We note that the burden of proof is on the petitioner to submit evidence to support its 
claims (rather than relying solely on the submission of reference letters ii-om individuals selected by 
the petitioner and the beneficiary). Section 29 1 of the Ad provides: 
Page 7 
Whenever any person makes application for a visa or any other document required for entry, or 
makes application for admission, or otherwise attempts to enter the United States, the burden of 
proof shall be upon such person to establish that he is eligible to receive such visa or such 
document, or is not inadmissible under any provision of this Act, and, if an alien, that he is 
entitled to the nonirnmigrant; immigrant, special immigrant, immediate relative, or refbgee 
status claimed, as the case may be. 
The law goes on to assert that the evidence must establish eligibility "to the satisfaction" of the 
adjudicating officer. This burden is confirmed in Matter of Soo Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 1965) and 
Matter of Brantigan, 1 1 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966). The petitioner cannot avoid this burden simply by 
asserting that certain evidence of achievements may exist, but cannot be obtained or submitted 
"because military contractors would prefer to keep what specific information that may relate to any 
of the foregoing categories - even if they could apply - at the very least, proprietary." If knowledge 
of the beneficiary's achievements is deliberately restricted, then by definition sustained national or 
international acclaim is virtually impossible. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a May 5, 2009 letter fi-om - 
U.S. Department of the Navy, and Department of Defense Chair, U.S. Sl OOOD Specification 
Management Group, stating: 
Sl OOOD is a complex and extensive international specification for producing and managing 
technical publications utilizing extensible Markup Language (XML) databases. It was 
originally developed in Europe and was accepted by the Governments of many countries in 
western Europe. Since 2007 the specification is jointly owned by the U.S. Aerospace 
Industries Association and the Aerospace and Defense Industries Association of Europe. 
[The beneficiary] spent a 7 year assignment with a U.S. defense contractor representing the 
United Kingdom Ministry of Defense. He provided expert advice and assistance with the 
development of an S1000D solution to produce the operations and maintenance manuals for 
a new airborne surveillance and recognizance system now with the UK armed forces. 
The Department of Defense does not offer awards to those at the very top of the SlOOOD 
specification. [The beneficiary's] involvement with its advancement and maintenance is 
reflected in changes to the published specification through the activities of the working 
groups on which he sits, and not published in scholarly journals. Nor does the field involve 
original research; rather SlOOOD is the implementation of an engineering specification to 
produce highly complex technical data. It is the nature of the field that it does not lend itself 
to these categorical types of evidence. 
The letter fiom also attempts to narrow the beneficiary's occupation and only addresses 
the inapplicability of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $9 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (vi). His letter does not 
address the inapplicability of any of the remaining criteria such as "high salary" or "leading or 
critical role." ~urther, does not cite to any evidence or independent source upon which 
his opinions are based. In fact, the information contained in his letter only provides further support 
for the director's finding that other regulatory criteria are applicable to the beneficiary's occupation. 
For example, states that S1000D was originally developed in Europe and was accepted 
for widespread use by various governments. Thus, the conception and original development of the 
SlOOOD specification by others is a solid example of an original business-related contribution of 
major significance in the beneficiary's field as required by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if 
the ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." In this case, the regulatory 
language at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) precludes the consideration of comparable evidence, as there is 
no indication that eligibility for visa preference in the beneficiary's occupation (whether it be 
technical support engineer, logistician, or management consultant) cannot be established by the ten 
criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to meet 
three of the regulatory criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) does not 
allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Nevertheless, we will evaluate the reference letters submitted by the petitioner attesting to the 
beneficiary's expertise and accomplishments. However, even if the petitioner were to have 
submitted evidence demonstrating that the regulatory criteria did not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, which it has not, we cannot conclude that reference letters are "comparable 
evidence" to the types of achievements and recognition specified in the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). While reference letters may provide usehl information about an alien's qualifications or 
help in assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters are not a substitute for objective evidence of 
the alien's achievements and recognition as required by the statute and regulations. The nonexistence 
of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, the 
classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international 
acclaim and recognized achievements in the field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U. S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations 
implementing the statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens 
of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more 
extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 
5, 1991). Primary evidence of achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than the 
opinions expressed by one's professional acquaintances. 
Procurement Agency (DPA), United Kingdom Ministry of ~efence (UK MOD), states: 
[The beneficiary] is a serving Chief Technician with the RAF. During much of his 27 year 
career he has worked in the field of Logistics analysis including electronic documentation 
and has gained an extremely high level of expertise in the business of military equipment 
development, acquisition and through life support. 
Page 9 
UK MOD recognises [the beneficiary] as an expert in the international standard for the 
production of interactive electronic publications using a common source database (S1000D). 
A September 6, 2006 letter fiom identifies him as a "Subject Matter Expert in the 
field of Electronic Technical Documentation" employed by Technical Enabling Services, Technical 
Information Group, UK MOD. letter states: 
I met [the beneficiary] about 5 years ago when he was a member of Her Majesty's Royal Air 
Force working on a major UK project at L3 Comms in Greenville, Texas, as the UK IPT's 
(Integrated Project Team) technical documentation and data (TD & D) specialist. This 
involved [the beneficiary] liaising with the company's TD & D and LSA [Logistic Support 
Analysis] departments on an almost daily basis. He rapidly became an expert in all matters 
regarding the S1000D specification, its interaction with the LSA and other ILS disciplines. 
While the beneficiary possesses expertise in the SlOOOD standard as noted by his professional 
contacts, there is no evidence showing that he has sustained national or international acclaim for 
achievements in logistics or engineering. 
I first met [the beneficiary] in July 2004 when I became his Commanding Officer at the L-3 
Com facility in Greenville, Texas. Our team was responsible for the delivery of the ILS 
[Integrated Logistics Support] package for a major UK Defence Programme. He was my 
technical lead for the application of SlOOOD in the Technical Documentation Suite for the 
programme, and other team members and Contractors (both L-3 and Raytheon) regularly 
sought his advice. 
[The beneficiary] is an expert in the SlOOOD standard and would be a great asset to any 
defence contractor. He has already been a valuable source of information for a U.S. defence 
contractor working on a major UK military project and I can see why Raytheon would want 
to recruit him to advise them on the S 1000D. 
I feel that [the beneficiary] would provide invaluable expertise to U.S. Defense contractors in 
implementing the SlOOOD specification as part of the military integrated logistical support. 
He has over 26 years service in the UK Royal Air Force and extensive experience with 
Integrated Logistics Support producing whole life support solutions. As an extra bonus to 
[the beneficiary] has experience with Logistic 
Support Analysis techniques and in particular our EAGLE and Log software tools. 
[The beneficiary] has over ten years experience and expert knowledge in producing 
Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals to the S 1 OOOD Specification. He has also advised 
and assisted U.S. contractors in the implementation of S1000D. . . . [The beneficiary] has 
experience being a consultant on Def Stan 00-60, SlOOOD, and S2000M. He has also 
managed the acceptance of S1000D Interactive Electronic Technical Publications so he can 
help U.S. contractors identi& problem areas up fiont. Since 1998, [the beneficiary] has 
implemented SlOOOD with several U.S. customers. This experience provides Raytheon 
Technical Services Company, LLC, and their customers who use the iLog software tool a 
consultant having an excellent knowledge base. These achievements are evidence of [the 
beneficiary's] extraordinary ability in the field of business as it relates to the S1000D in the 
context of military integrated logistical support to U.S. defense contractors. 
While the beneficiary's expertise is acknowledged by his coworkers, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that his work has significantly impacted the industry beyond his immediate projects in 
a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
I met [the beneficiary] during my latter years in the Royal Air Force when he was embarking 
on a project that was implementing S1000D. I am familiar with the Airborne Stand-off 
Radar (ASTOR) project that he has been working on, here in the U.S., whilst a serving 
member of the Royal Air Force. [The beneficiary] provided advice and assistance to the U.S. 
defense contractors for the ASTOR program, L-3 Communications and Raytheon. 
His efforts and extraordinary ability in the business of producing technical documentation to 
the S1000D specification enabled the contractors to meet the requirements of the contract to 
deliver S 1000D compliant Interactive Electronic Technical Publications which are now being 
used by the fiont line war fighter. This was an extraordinary achievement because L-3 
Communications had not previously produced electronic publications in any format. 
Communications Integrated Systems, states: 
[The beneficiary] has demonstrated an exception [sic] ability in implementing the ASD 
SlOOOD specification to produce electronic technical manuals for a new and complex 
military system. Working with the technical publication departments of L-3 Communications 
Systems and Raytheon Electronic Systems here in the U.S. and Raytheon Systems Limited in 
the UK his guidance was critical to the program in assisting personnel who had no previous 
knowledge of the specification. 
Page 11 
A December 14,2006 letter fi-om for the UK ASTOR Program at L- 
3 Communications Integrated Systems, states: 
[The beneficiary] brought expert knowledge and expertise in the implementation of 
Integrated Logistics Support to the requirements of UK Defense Standard 00-60 to the 
ASTOR program. During the past seven years he has demonstrated an extraordinary ability 
in the business of producing Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETMs) through the 
implementation of the SlOOOD international specification. His expert advice, guidance and 
assistance facilitated, indeed enabled L-3 Communications to produce and deliver the 
IETM's for the ASTOR program. 
While the preceding individuals credit the beneficiary with providing guidance to staff fiom L-3 
Communications Systems and Raytheon in the production of SlOOOD compliant documentation for 
the ASTOR project, there is no evidence showing that this work was indicative of recognition and 
achievements consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
Communications Integrated Systems, states: 
Based on my observation fiom having worked on a daily basis with [the beneficiary] in the 
development of the program for ASTOR, it is my opinion that he is expert in the very 
esoteric requirements and implementations of the SlOOOD Specification. I have seen no 
published figures on the number of experts on S1000D. My most educated estimate for 
experts on SlOOOD in the U. S. would be approximately 200. Of those, 50 are members of 
the U.S. DOD, and 100 are members of various trade organizations. The remaining 50 are 
scattered throughout industry available to actually do the work of creating S1000D technical 
publication products. This will prove to be inadequate and I cannot over-emphasize the need 
in this country for those, such as [the beneficiary], with extraordinary ability in this technical 
field. 
While and others' mmments regarding the shortage of U.S. workers with the SlOOOD 
expertise address the beneficiary's prospective benefit to the United States as required by section 
203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act, they do not demonstrate evidence of his sustained national or international 
acclaim and recognized achievements in the field. We note that the classification sought in the instant 
proceeding is not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In fact, the issue of 
whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States is an issue under the jurisdiction 
of the Department of Labor through the alien employment certification process. Matter of New York 
State Dep 't of Tramp., 22 I&N Dec. 21 5,221 (Cornmr. 1998). 
stating: 
Of the two or three vendors in the U.S. that could provide the requisite SlOOOD content 
management software, service, and training associated with producing S1000D XML content 
for Airbus, we selected the Raytheon Technical Services Company. This selection was based 
primarily on the strength of their service and support record, and most importantly - 
experience in training and consulting services in S 1000D. 
[The beneficiary] has been working with Astronautics for about 4 months on our Airbus 
A400M SlOOOD Content Management Implementation Project, our difficultly in finding 
SlOOOD expertise had caused the program to fall behind schedule. He provided insight and 
advice to move the program forward. In December 2008 he delivered two weeks of on-site 
training and consulting to my team and I. This has given us a basic understanding of the 
requirements and allowed us to begin producing XML data and to recover the schedule slip. 
[The beneficiary] has proven extremely valuable in Astronautics' goal to implement S1000D 
XML content. His unique and hard-to-find skill sets as our trainer and mentor helped us 
understand how to do business in the S1000D arena with Airbus military. 
The beneficiary's work with Astronautics Corporation of America post-dates the filing of the 
petition. A petitioner, however, must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Cornmr. 1971). 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the beneficiary's work with Astronautics Corporation of 
America in this proceeding. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a May 12, 2009 letter fiom -~ 
Advisor for Supportability of the Close In Weapons System MK15 for Life Cycle Engineering, - 
Raytheon ~issile Systems, stating: 
[The beneficiary] served as the principle advisor and technical lead for conversion of our 
Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETM's) fkom a contractor format (non-MILSTD) 
to a S 1 OOOD compliant MILSTD product. This conversion is to serve as the foundation for 
all U.S. Navy and U.S. Army weapon systems IETM's. Our program was chosen as the first 
because it was considered to be one of the most complex in design and production and the 
intend [sic] was to stress the conversion process to the maximum extend [sic] before allowing 
other U.S. weapons systems to use the S 1000D standard. 
Raytheon possessed no experts on SlOOOD, with exception of [the beneficiary]. His 
expertise, unselfish dedication in uncompensated time, patience with training a team of 12 
technical writers and conversation of over 27 years of accumulated technical data in just over 
a year has been immeasurable to our success and has had a direct impact on an improved 
product for our end-users, the men and women of our armed services. This transition to 
SlOOOD will result in substantial savings to our defense budget, increase our opportunities 
for sales to our allies and help our service members become more proficient. 
We acknowledge the preceding individuals' statements regarding the beneficiary's role in ensuring 
that Raytheon complies with its contractual obligations regarding the SlOOOD standard, but the 
petitioner has not established that such work demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim, 
or that the beneficiary's achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the 
cornerstone of a successfbl 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 fiom the beneficiary's professional contacts 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. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware 
of the beneficiary's reputation are important considerations. 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 Soflci, 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)). 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 of achievements and recognition that one would expect of an 
individual who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing general assertions regarding the 
beneficiary's acclaim and expertise are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
achievements that have been recognized throughout the field. In addition, letters fiom independent 
references who were previously aware of the beneficiary through his reputation are far more 
persuasive than letters fiom those who have worked with beneficiary on past projects. 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 fiom local colleagues or letters that do not specifically identify contributions 
or how those contributions have influenced the field are insufficient. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 
1030 (9'h Cir. 2009). We cannot ignore that almost all of the individuals offering letters of support have 
professional ties to the beneficiary. With regard to the opinions of individuals who have worked 
with the beneficiary, the source of the recommendations is a highly relevant consideration. These 
letters are not first-hand evidence that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim 
for his achievements outside of those who are close to him. The statutory and regulatory requirement 
for "extensive documentation'' of "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of 
recognition beyond direct acquaintances of the beneficiary. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Finally, counsel's contention that reference letters are a comparable substitute for "extensive 
documentation" of achievements and recognit ion as required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act 
and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) is not supported by a plain reading of the statute, the 
regulations, or standing precedent. The regulations governing the extraordinary ability immigrant visa 
classification have no requirement mandating that USCIS specifically accept the credibility of personal 
testimony, even if not corroborated. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that eligibility 
may be established through a one-time achievement or through documentation meeting at least three of 
ten criteria. The criteria require specific documentation beyond mere testimony, such as awards, 
published material about the alien, and a high salary. As an example of the specific nature of the 
documentation required, the regulation at 8 C.F.R 8 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires the "title, date and author" 
of the published material about the alien. The only criterion for which letters are specifically relevant is 
the criterion relating to the alien's leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished 
reputation. 8 C.F.R 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The first issue is the role the alien was hired to fill. According 
to 8 C.F.R 5 204.5(g) letters fiom employers are acceptable evidence of experience.' While the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) permits "comparable evidence" where the ten criteria do not 
"readily apply" to the alien's occupation, the regulation neither states nor implies that opinion letters 
attesting to the alien's expertise in the field are "comparable" to the strict documentation requirements 
in the regulations setting forth the ten criteria. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the reference 
letters submitted by the beneficiary's current and former colleagues are comparable to the types of 
achievements and recognition required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). 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. A petitioner, however, cannot establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the beneficiary meets a specific criterion, 
the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent 
with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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 petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).~ 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzjication 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 
1 We note, however, that an alien would also need to submit objective evidence of the reputation of the employer to satisfy 
the specific requirement of 8 C.F.R 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 15 
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. 
Implementation Guide and Business Rules Task Teams (IG&BRTT), stating: 
I would like to confirm the involvement of [the beneficiary] into the work of two Task Teams 
assigned by the uppermost body of SlOOOD Community, Technical Publications 
Specification Maintenance Group (TPSMG). 
These Task Teams [IG&BRTT]. They were assigned by TPSMG to elaborate an SlOOOD 
Implementation Guide and provide guidance and essential tools for projects to produce their 
business rules during S 1000D implementation. 
We note comment that the "uppermost body of SlOOOD Community" is the 
TSPSMG and that the beneficiary performs work assigned to two of its Task Teams. There is no 
evidence showing that the beneficiary is an actual member of the TPSMG or that his task team 
assignments are an indication that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter fiom 
. Sl OOOD Electronic Publications Working Group (EPWG), stating: 
My personal contact with [the beneficiary] has been in the EPWG committee meetings. I am 
the current chairman of the EPWG for the last 2 years and a vice-chairman for 2 years prior 
to that. [The beneficiary] is a contributing member of the EPWG committee and as such is at 
the very top of the field of S1000D implementation. He has proven in committee to possess a 
depth of knowledge in the practical application of and an extraordinary ability in SlOOOD 
that is matched only by non-US persons. This expertise was gained fiom his experience of 
S1000D implementation for the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence. 
In this case, there is no evidence (such as bylaws, committee rules, or official admission 
requirements) showing that the IG&BRTT and the EPWG require outstanding achievements of their 
members as judged by recognized national or international experts in the beneficiary's field or an 
allied one. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzj?~, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signijicance in the field. 
As discussed, the petitioner submitted several reference letters discussing the beneficiary's SlOOOD 
expertise and his work for various defense contracts. Talent and experience in one's field, however, 
are not necessarily indicative of original contributions of major significance in the field. The record 
lacks evidence showing that the beneficiary has made original contributions that have significantly 
influenced or impacted his field. With regard to the beneficiary's achievements, the reference letters 
do not specify exactly what his original contributions in engineering or logistics have been, nor is 
there an explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major significance in his field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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. While the beneficiary has performed admirably on 
various defense contracts involving S1000D implementation, there is no evidence demonstrating that 
his work is recognized beyond his employers such that it equates to original scientific or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate the 
extent of the beneficiary's influence on other engineers or logisticians nationally or internationally, 
nor does it show that either field has somehow changed as a result of his work. Without extensive 
documentation showing that the beneficiary's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed 
throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major 
significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peformed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the beneficiary was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
I became acquainted with [the beneficiary] in the spring of 2000 when I became a member of 
the ASTOR Tech Publication team. By that time, [the beneficiary] had become an integral 
part of the team. The purpose of the team was the creation and development of an interactive 
electronic technical publication (IETP) used to support the service of the ASTOR aircraft. 
The TETP proposed some great challenges for the L-3 Communication Tech Pub team. This 
was the first time the Tech Pubs team had used the SlOOOD specification. As the Tech Pubs 
team began to understand the requirements of the ASTOR program it became apparent that 
the S1000D specification would play an integral role in the development of the IETP. Since 
[the beneficiary] was a key member of the team, his outstanding knowledge of the S1000D 
specification allowed the team to gain the necessary tools needed to develop the IETP. [The 
beneficiary's] continuing support allowed the Tech Pubs team to meet and exceed the major 
milestones through all stages of the IETP development. 
Integrated Systems, states: 
During my association with [the beneficiary], he provided invaluable assistance to L-3 
Communications IS and Raytheon through his understanding of how DEFSTAN 00-60 
requirements affected the implementation of S1000D. He provided input and direction during 
all reviews of the IETP development process concerning the implementation of SlOOOD 
elements. He provided specific review comments during the IETP development with 
emphasis on DEFSTAN 00-60 requirements providing L-3 Communications IS and 
Raytheon with the means to quickly understand and correct problem areas thus reducing 
overall schedule which ultimately reduced cost. [The beneficiary] attended various 
workshops and user conferences broadening his knowledge of the electronic tools used in the 
development of the ASTOR IETPs and how they apply to the implementation of S1000D in a 
DEFSTAN 00-60 environment. The insight gained and his experience with the use of these 
tools was passed on to logistics personnel both in the RAF and in the L-3 Communications IS 
and Raytheon. This was invaluable in streamlining the IETP development process for the 
ASTOR Program. 
While the preceding letters from and and the additional reference letters 
submitted by the petitioner indicate that the beneficiary performed admirably for defense projects 
involving the implementation of S 1 OOOD, the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not 
establish that the beneficiary's positions were leading or critical to RTSC, L-3 Communications 
Integrated Systems, the United States Department of Defense, or UK MOD as a whole. There is no 
evidence demonstrating how the beneficiary's roles differentiated him from the other engineers or 
logisticians who worked for these organizations, let alone their top leadership. For example, the 
petitioner has not submitted an organizational chart or other similar evidence showing the 
beneficiary's position in relation to that of the other engineers and logisticians employed by RTSC, 
L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, the United States Department of Defense, or UK MOD. 
In this case, the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that the beneficiary 
was responsible for the preceding organizations' success or standing to a degree consistent with the 
meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 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. 
states that the beneficiary's base salary "will be $80,000.00." The record, however, 
does not include evidence (such as payroll records or income tax returns) showing the beneficiary's 
actual earnings for any specific period of time. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 158, 165. Nevertheless, the plain language of this regulatory criterion 
requires the petitioner to submit evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary commanded a high 
salary "in relation to others in the field." In this case, there is no evidence showing that the 
beneficiary's earnings were significantly high in relation to others in his field. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding 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 criteria that must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by 
considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence 
in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the beneficiary as one of 
the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, counsel additionally argues that prior approval of an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed 
on the beneficiary's behalf shows that he meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for 
immigrant classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. We do not find that the prior approval of 
a nonimmigrant visa mandates the subsequent approval of an immigrant visa. Each case must decided 
on a case-by-case basis based upon the evidence of record. While USCIS has approved at least one 0- 
1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary by RTSC, the prior approval does not 
preclude USCIS fiom denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased 
standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves 
prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 26 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-1 29 
nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply 
approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M 
Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals 
do not preclude USCIS fiom denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of 
the beneficiary's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest 
that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1 988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals ahd a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant 
petition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a 
service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 
1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
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 or 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 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. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 8 557(b) 
("On appeal fiom or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have 
in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka 
v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
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.