dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

idcatitping data deleted to 
pm~~~~pl eieok%y unw8r~"rnBed 
IRWID~~ iJmvqcy 
U.S. Department of Homelas~d Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: MG 1 2 1005 
WAC 04 183 52818 
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. § 1 153(b)(1)(.4) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been retuined to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
w (kobert P. Wiemann, Director 2.~ . Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Californi,a Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in business.' The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the 
beneficiary had achieved the sustained national or international acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "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. $ 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). An alien can e:stablish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, el major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability in business 
as the President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the petitioner, a retail furniture store. The petitioner 
submitted supporting documents including the company's tax returns, profit and loss statement, bank and 
payroll statements, two reports about the company by "D&B" (identified as Dun and Bradstreet by the 
petitioner), newspaper articles in English and Spanish, the beneficiary's diploma in civil engineering, the 
company's business plan, Arizona trade name certification and tax license, a list of suppliers, the beneficiary's 
social security statement, a company brochure, a commercial security agreement and mortgage documents 
1 
It is noted that an attorney who is currently on the list of suspended and expelled practitioners represttnts the 
petitioner. See http://www.uidq pnvlroi- . . . , , accessed on August 10, 2005. Therefore, the 
AAO may not recognize counsel in this proceeding. 
relating to real estate owned by the beneficiary and his wife, and a letter and certificate acknowledging the 
business accomplishments of the beneficiary's wife. The director determined the record did not establish that 
the beneficiary had earned the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an unsigned brief and additional evidence including two newspaper articles; a 
digital video disc (DVD) of a television interview with the beneficiary and his wife; a brochure for Grupo Sol a 
group of companies including the petitioner; a media card with a prornofional presentation about the 
Hispanic Advertising company; the petitioner's 2004 balance sheet, profit and loss statement, and recent II payro 
statement; four letters of recommendation; the petitioner's Certificate of Good Standing from the Coirporation 
Commission of Arizona; a report of the petitioner's good standing with the Better Business Bureau (E3BB); an 
additiOna'R 
report on the petitioner; the 2004 U.S. Small Business Administration Personal lqinancial 
Statement or t e beneficiary and his wife; and a Comprehensive Action Plan for the petitioner. The petitioner's 
claims and the additional evidence submitted on appeal do not overcome the deficiencies of the petition and the 
appeal will be dismissed. The evidence submitted and the petitioner's claims are addressed in the following - - 
discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On page three of its initial brief, the petitioner claimed that the beneficiary met this criterion by virtue of the - - 
The petitioner further stated, "One does not apply 
rating that a company can be given for 
petitioner initially submitted a report 
reditX Monitoring" for the company. A letter dated March 16, 2004 that accompalnies the 
report states, 'Thank you for ordering red it^ service, one ofpremier self diagnostic tools 
created for business professionals like yourself. As you know, part of the service is to provide you with your 
company's commercial credit score on a quarterly basis for one full year." This report lists the beneficiary as 
the petitioner's CEO and owner and ranks the company as having a "I - Low Risk credit score in the 94" 
percentile (with 100 representing the lowest risk). A second report submitted with the petition is entitled 
"BusinessScope" and is also dated March 16, 2004 and addressed to and the beneficiary as the 
petitioner's CEO. The report begins by stating, "Thank you for orderin usinessscope, our new. service 
you compare to other companies in your line of business." The executive summary states, 
v 
emonstrated a strong financial condition as of the interim statement dated Oct 3 1, 2003. 
IS assessment IS supported by a favorable liquidity position and a satisfactory ratio of debt to equity relative to 
other companies in this line of business." On appeal, the petitioner submitted a third port entitled 
"ImageScope," which begins by thanking the beneficiary "for orderin Imagescope, our new senlice that 
lets you see what information is available on your business t .el ustomers." This report states that the 
company has a "High Composite Credit Appraisal" as a business with a worth between one to ten million 
dollars based on the petitioner's October 31, 2003 interim financial statement. These reports indicate that the 
beneficiary is the CEO of the petitioner, a reputable and financially sound business. Yet the reports were 
ordered by the beneficiary and do not constitute a prize or award for business excellence. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that the beneficiary's wife was nominated to serve as one of Arizona's 
Voting Delegates at the 2004 National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Tax Summit and that she 
was recognized by the NRCC's Business Advisory Council as a 2003 Businesswoman of the Year. These 
honors were presented to the beneficiary's wife, not the beneficiary. The record shows that the beneficiary's 
wife is the Vice President of the petitioner and is centrally involved in the petitioner's business. However, the 
submitted letter and certificate from the NRCC do not name the petitioner. Hence, her honors cannot be 
attributed to the petitioner or the beneficiary. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary now qualifies under this criterion because the petitioner 
I a promam by the City of Phoenix, Community Development Block Grant," 
- Comprehensive Action Plan, Venancio and 
Peparid by Maricopa Community Colleges Small Business Development Center, January 2005. 
with The City of Phoenix Community Development Block Grant." This proposal was written 
seven months after the petition was filed and consequently cannot be considered. The petitioner must establish 
the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 
(Comm. 1971). Even if it had arisen before the petition was filed, this evidence would not meet this criterion. 
First, the petitioner submitted an "Action Plan," not documentation that the company actually received a 
community development block grant. Second, the record does not establish that such grants constitute prizes or 
awards under this criterion. On page three of its appellate brief, the petitioner claims "[tlhis award by the Small 
Business Association is only given to a few select businesses who show promises that they will have continued 
development in the community. It is a great honor to be selected for this program." The record is devotd of any 
evidence that the block grants are awarded by the "Small Business Association" or that receipt of a grant is a 
"great honor." Yet simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craji of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The record thus contains no evidence that the beneficiary has won any prizes or awards for business excellence. 
Consequently, he does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classij?cation is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner did not initially claim that the beneficiary was eligible under this category. On appeal, the 
petitioner claims that the beneficiary meets this criterion because the petitioner has been a member of the 
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce since 1997 and a member of the BBB since 1997. The record contains no 
evidence of the petitioner's membership in the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Again, simply going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Id. 
The BBB report submitted on appeal states that the petitioner has been a BBB member since July 2000, not 
1997 as claimed by the petitioner. The report affirms that the company "has a satisfactory record with the 
Bureau. The Bureau has processed no customer complaints on this company in its three-year reporting period." 
The report also explains that a "satisfactory record" will be earned by a company if it has been "in business for 
at least 12 months, properly and promptly address matters referred to it by the Bureau, and [is] free from an 
unusual volume or pattern of complaints and law enforcement action involving its marketplace conduct. In 
addition, the Bureau must have a clear understanding of the company's business and no concerns about its 
industry." These criteria appear to apply to any reputable and successful business and the record conlains no 
evidence that satisfaction of these criteria by the petitioner constitutes an outstanding achievement. Moreover, 
Page 5 
the BBB report lists the company's "Principal" as the beneficiary's wife, not the beneficiary. Consequ~:ntly, the 
petitioner's BBB membership does not demonstrate the beneficiary's eligibility under this criterion. 
(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. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a newspaper article published in 2002 the Arizona Business Gazette and an 
undated copy of the same article published in the Arizona Republic that discuss the business of the beneficiary 
and his wife. The director correctly stated that these articles appeared in regional publications, not major media. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a printout from the website of the Arizona Republic which states that the 
publication "is Arizona's leading provider of news and information" and the "state's largest newspa,per." A 
document entitled "Media Kit" also submitted on appeal states that the Arizona Business Gazette is a weekly 
business newspaper that has a circulation of "[albout 3,000 primarily in the metropolitan Phoenix area " These 
documents indicate that both publications are limited to the Phoenix metropolitan area or Arizona state and do 
not establish that the newspapers have national circulation. Consequently, the newspapers do not constitute 
professional, major trade publications or other major media, publication in which would reflect national 
acclaim. 
The petitioner also submitted articles purportedly about the petitioner and the beneficiary from Spanish 
language publications, and a copy of an interview with the beneficiary and his wife broadcast on Ilnivision. 
Both the articles and the transcript of the interview were submitted without certified English translations as 
required by 8 C.F.R. # 103.2(b)(3). Without certified translations, we cannot determine whether this evidence 
supports the beneficiary's claimed eligibility under this criterion. Id. We note, however, that materials about an 
alien published in the United States in a language which the majority of the population does not speak rarely 
demonstrate national acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted two additional newspaper articles from the Arizona Republic and the 
Arizona Business Gazette that were published in 2004. We cannot consider these articles because they were 
published after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of 
filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. In sum, the record contains no published 
material about the beneficiary that meets this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contribrltions of 
major signijkance in the field. 
The petitioner did not originally claim or submit evidence relating to the beneficiary's eligibility under this 
category. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary meets this criterion because the beneficiary and 
his wife "are leaders in growth in the emerging Hispanic market in Arizona," who have "developed th~eir own 
advertising agency to assist other Hispanic retailers," and "have achieved the second highest rating from Dun & 
Bradstreet." The petitioner also cites the recommendation letters and newspaper articles submitted on appeal as 
additional evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility under this criterion. We address each claim in turn. 
First, the record demonstrates that the petitioner is a successful and financially sound company, but it cloes not 
establish that the company leads "in growth in the emerging Hispanic market in Arizona" or that the company's 
growth is attributable to the beneficiary in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
The D&B reports and the company's financial statements indicate that it is a profitable and financially sound 
business. The 2002 article from the Arizona Business Gazette submitted with the petition discuss the 
petitioner's growth from one to three stores in seven years and the company's financing services whilch allow 
their Spanish-speaking customers to establish good credit. The article features a photograph of the beneficiary 
and his wife. The beneficiary is identified as a co-owner of the company, but only his wife is quoted and 
referenced in the text of the articles. 
In a letter submitted on appe enera1 Manager of Radio Campesina. a non-profit 
organization owned by the National Farm Workers Service Center, affirms that the beneficiary and his wife 
"have had the ability to aid [the petitioner] to continue to grow without losing the focus of the 
Community, by offering the American credit system that is in need of growth and development." mh 
~iversit~ Programs Coordinator and Business Analyst for the Maricopa Small Business Development 
Center, also states that his Center "is working with [the petitioner]. After recognizing their work and effort in 
helping the Hispanic community by offering great quality products and credit services, realizing a double 
contribution to our society [sic]." A letter fronternational Business Devr:lopment 
Director of the Mexican company Grupo Famsa, explains that his company chose the etitioner as their 
representative in Arizona due to its "tremendous business and personal reputation.' dh explains 
that "[wlhile [the petitioner] is the official representative of our merchandise in the United States, we deliver the 
sold merchandise throughout Mexico. This creates an absolute alliance between the Latin consumers, who 
securely disburse for the commodities in the United States while their families enjoys [sic] the converrience of 
new possessions in Mexico." The evidence does not show that the petitioner is the only company or the leading 
company in the United States which provides its customers with financing and credit services or the ability to 
purchase furniture for their relatives in Mexico. Moreover, the record only documents the petitioner's regional 
financial strength and local business reputation. The D&B reports compare the petitioner to companies in the 
same industry in the "Mountain" or "West" region of the United States. Similarly, the newspaper articles only 
reflect the petitioner's business reputation in Phoenix and Arizona. Even if we assumed that the petitioner's 
accomplishments can be attributed to the beneficiary as an individual, the record does not demonstrate that the 
petitioner's growth and contributions to its field have gained recognition outside of Arizona. Hence, the 
company's contributions do not demonstrate the beneficiary's national or international acclaim. 
Second, the evidence submitted on appeal indicates the company owned by 
the beneficiary and his wife, was established afte nce of the adlfertising - 
company was submitted with the petition and the newspaper articles submitted on appeal indicate that the 
company was established in t etitioner also submitted a media card conlaining a 
promotional presentation of that is dated 2005. The petitioner submitted no 
evidence that the company was created prior to the filing of this petition. Consequently, we cannot consider the 
beneficiary's advertising company as evidence under this criterion. The petitioner must establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
- - 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 10%2(b)(12), Kcrtigbak, 14 I&N D&. at 49. 
Moreover, the record contains no evidence (in existence prior to filing) which indicates that 
Advertising has been recognized by other business leaders as making a major contribution 
field. 
Finally, the D&B reports also do not meet this criterion. As discussed above and under the first criterion, these 
reports evidence the petitioner's favorable financial standing and credit rating. Yet the petitioner submitted no 
evidence that obtaining such favorable reports show that a company had made major contributions to the 
beneficiary's field. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has pelformed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The record indicates that the beneficiary is the president and CEO of the petitioner, a successful retail furniture 
company with a good regional reputation in Arizona. The record does not, however, persuasively establish that 
the petitioner's success and reputation is largely attributable to the beneficiary. In fact, the evidence submitted 
suggests that the beneficiary's wife is largely responsible for the petitioner's good public relations. The English 
newspaper articles submitted with the petition quote the beneficiary's wife and she has been recognized by the 
NRCC as a "Businesswoman of the Year." The record is devoid of any similar evidence that the beneficiary has 
been publicly recognized and honored for his leading or critical role for the petitioner or for his business 
accomplishments in that role. Moreover, the petitioner's reputation is regional and the record contains no 
evidence that the company has a national reputation in which the beneficiary's role would reflect the requisite 
sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commnnded a high salaly or other signij7cuntly high remzmercztion for 
services, in relation to others in thefield. 
The petitioner did not initially claim that the beneficiary was eligible under this criterion. On appeal, the 
petitioner contends that the beneficiary meets this criterion by virtue of a U.S. Small Business Administration 
Personal Financial Statement of the beneficiary and his wife that was submitted on appeal. The statenlent lists 
the couple's net worth as $3,236,570 as of December 31, 2004. Yet the petitioner submitted no docurrlentation 
of how much of this net worth was acquired by the beneficiary at the time of filing in June 2004. The record is 
also devoid of any evidence that the beneficiary's income is significantly higher than other CEOs in the retail 
furniture business or comparable to the incomes of CEOs at the very top of his field. Accordingly, the 
beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
Despite this criterion's clear erforrning arts, the petitioner claimed in its initial brief 
that "[tlhe tax returns and the rating show that [the beneficiary] has enjoyed great 
commercial success. He has developed a three million dollar business which employees [sic] over thirty people 
and has created job opportunity for many Americans." Even if we consider evidence of the peti~tioner's 
commercial success as comparable evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility under this category pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(4), he does not meet this criterion. The petitioner's federal tax returns list a total income of 
$1,249,408 in 2001; $1,758,439 in 2002; and $2,223,585 in 2003. The petitioner's 2003 profit and loss 
statement lists a gross profit of $2,267,574.13 and a net profit of $231,816.09. The payroll statements indicate 
that the petitioner employed 32 people as of January, 2004. The D&B Businessscope report stittes the 
petitioner's net profit after tax of $137,518, or 4%, which "compared favorably to the average net profit after tax 
of 2.9% for other firms in this line of business." The report also states that the "number of firms are compiled 
and based on regional data. The region for your company is WEST." The record thus shows that the petitioner 
is a growing and profitable company, yet the petitioner provided no evidence that its commercial success is 
directly attributable to the beneficiary or that its profits were consistently higher than that of other retail 
furniture businesses in a manner consistent with the requisite sustained national acclaim. Accordingly, the 
beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained na~tional or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the beneficiary is the president and CEO of a successful retail furniture business with a 
good reputation in Arizona. However, the record does not establish that the beneficiary has achieved sustained 
national or international acclaim as a businessman placing him at the very top of his field. He is thus ineligible 
for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(A), and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 3 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.