dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
APR 19 2011 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Uomeland S('curity 
U.S. Citi/enship and Immigratioll Services 
Administrati\."c Appeals Office (1\1\0) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.c. § II 'i3(b)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5, 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
)iD p;;dtlcL 
[Perry Rhew 
'IV Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.go,' 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeaL The appeal will be 
dismissed, 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1 1 53(b)(l)(A). The 
petitioner proposes to work as a financial manager. According to the record of proceedings, which 
contains the petitioner's Form G-325A Biographic Information signed on March 11, 2010, the 
petitioner has worked in the United States as a senior accountant since 2005. The entire evidence 
submitted to sUpp0l1 the petition consists of four letters providing anecdotes about the petitioner's 
employment in Pakistan prior to February 2000. The director determined the petitioner had not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. (Emphasis added.) See section 203(b)( I )(A)(i) 
of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states 
that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-timc 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(i) through (x). 
The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that because an ability to "meet" three criteria does not automatically 
establish eligibility, it logically follows that an alien can demonstrate eligibility without "meeting" three 
criteria. What the petitioner characterizes as "alternative logic" is not persuasive. The fact that meeting 
the procedural documentary requirements is only the first step in establishing eligibility docs not imply 
that this step can be skipped. The petitioner also notes that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) 
permits the submission of "comparable evidence." The petitioner ignores the fact that this provision 
only permits the submission of comparable evidence where the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are 
not readily applicable to the petitioner's occupation and fails to explain how a handful of lettcrs is 
comparable to the objective evidentiary requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For the 
reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not submitted the required extensive evidence of sustained 
acclaim, both statutory requirements. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
Page 3 
(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 H.R. 723 10 I S{ Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The tenn "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id.: 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence. 
(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 specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
Page 4 
(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 exhibitions 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. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed thc denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the 
court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation 
of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
~ 204.5(h)(3 )(iv) and (vi), the COUlt concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concelllS 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concellls should have 
bcen raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." /d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to 
this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requIsIte evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of thefir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)( iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C § I I 53(b)(l)(A)(i). 
fd. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set fOlth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 CF.R. 103.3(a)(l)(iv); So/tane v. DO}, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, fne. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), ({{(,d, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
Nothing in the court's decision suggests that a petitioner who fails to produce the required initial 
evidence pursuant to the requirements at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) can still establish eligibility at the 
final merits stage. The court stated: 
Whether an applicant for an extraordinary visa presents two types of evidence or 
none, the proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the 
AAO did), and the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded). 8 C.F.R. 
~ 204.5(h)(3). 
Notably, while the court made clear that counting the evidence is only the "antecedent procedural 
question," Kazarian 596 F. 3d at 1121, the court ultimately concluded that the alien in the matter before 
it only met two criteria and on that basis alone upheld uscrs' denial of the petition. fd. at 1122. 
Nevertheless, in the interest of thoroughness, the AAO conducts a final merits determination in all 
cases. 
II, Analysis 
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ••••••• i discusses the peti ti oner' s as 
where the petitioner "unearthed a 
ever worked for ~nd does 
providing. 
of the largest multi-national corporations in all of Pakistan," 
amounting to $500,000, _oes not suggest that he 
not explain his first hand knowledge of the information he is 
Page 6 
that the petitioner "is credited with and recognized for the financial genius which 
led to the enormous, hig~i-million dollar mergers of 
and the French-company~ become 
that the petitioner "was the financial mastermind 
~erger) to the German chemical and pharmaceutical giant, Bayer. . similar 
information, discussing the petitioner's role in _mergers and asserts that he "panicipated in 
meetings" in different countries. 
Finally,_assens that the petitioner developed a cost center-profit center methodology for 
ClL'[J(;U and implemented an exchange rate fluctuation model that he proposed to 
and uncovered an accounting fraud. _ does not provide any examples of 
independent accountants adopting the petitioner's methodologies or model and the record contains no 
evidence that the petitioner published and disseminated these innovations. 
The above letters constitute the entirety of the evidence the petitioner has snbmitted in this matter. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documenration or the alien's receipt (If lesser nationally or internationally reco/illized prizes or 
awards.f()r excellence in the field or endeavor. 
The record contains no prizes or awards. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Documentation or the alien's membership in associations in the field F)r which classificatioll is 
sou/iht. which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged hy recoWlized Ilariollal 
or internatiollal experts in their disciplilles orfields. 
The record contains no documentation of memberships, qualifying or otherwise. Thus, the petitioner 
has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Puhlished material ahout the aliell ill professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. relarill/i to the aliell's work in the field for which classificatioll is soughr. Such evidellU' 
shall illclude the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary rrallslarioll. 
The record contains no published material about the petitioner or even about the mergers discussed in 
the letters. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Page 7 
Evidence or the alien '.I' participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge or the work or 
others il7 the same or an alliedjield (!rspecificationfor which classification is ,\'Ought. 
None of the letters confirm that the petitioner was selected to serve individually or on a panel as ajudge 
of the work of others. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence or the alien '.I' original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or husiness·related 
cOlltrihlltions oj"major significance in the field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must he not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major 
significance in the field of business, it can be expected that the results would have been 
demonstrably influential in the business world. 
The letters do not suggest that the petitioner's exposure of a fraud or his involvement in large 
mergers has changed the way accountants perform audits or the way husinesses conduct mergers. 
The record contains no evidence, such as published material about the fraud or the mergers. 
suggesting that they were recognized as significant by the field. As stated above, the record contains 
no evidence that the petitioner published or presented his methodologies and that other accountants 
have adopted those methodologies. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not he disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, hut require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to suhmit 
corrohorative evidence. Matter or Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or 
provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. 2 The 
opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, 
in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Multer oj" 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility: USCIS may, as we have done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
2 Ka;ariall I'. USGS, 580 F3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) ajTd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2D 10). In 20 I D, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
alien's[ contributions in the field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at I 122. 
Page 8 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter ()f V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 
(BIA 2(08) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
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 Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158. 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!. 
Comm'r. 1972». 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of 
contributions without providing specific examples of how those contributions rise to a level 
consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations docs not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof 3 Most significantly, the petitioner failed 
to submit any corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition. which 
could have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
In light of the above, the letters do not constitute qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)( v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trode 
puhlications or other major media. 
The record contains no published articles by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted 
qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Fvidence oj'the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhihitions or showcases. 
The petitioner's occupation is not within the arts. Regardless, the record lacks evidence that the 
petitioner has displayed his work in any forum. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
J:'vidence that the alien has perjc)rmed in a leading or critical role 1')r organizatiol1s or 
estahlishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)( I) provides that letters of experience shall consist of letters from 
current or former employers. While _asserts that the petitioner held a "senior managerial 
position" with Hoechst and AgrEvo, h~provide the petitioner's exact job title. He also does 
not explain how the petitioner'S position fit within the general hierarchy of the company and does not 
provide an organizational chart. 
1 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990): 
Avvr Associates. lnr. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accepl 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Ine. v. The Attorney General of the United States. 745 F. Supp. 9. 15 
(D.C. Disl. 1990). 
Page 9 
Even assuming the petitioner's role on various mergers and uncovering fraud rose to the level of a 
critical role for what became Bayer, which the petitioner has not demonstrated, the petitioner would 
still only meet a single criterion, Thus, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 
CF.R, * 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration Jilr 
services. in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner did not submit pay statements or other evidence of his salary or remuneration to 
demonstrate his actual receipt of a high salary mueh less documentary evidence of how such salary 
compares to others in the petitioner's field. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence 
under 8 CF.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ,,{fiee receipts or record. 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner'S occupation is not within the performing arts. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted 
qualifying evidence under 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
Comparable evidence 
The regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(4) permits the submission of comparable evidence where "the 
above standards do not readily apply" to the petitioner's occupation. The petitioner has not explaincd 
why the above standards do not readily apply to his occupation. Moreover, he has also not explained 
how four letters providing anecdotal reflections on the petitioner's past achievements arc comparable to 
the objective evidence categories described above. Significantly, we note that the regulations do not 
allow the submission of' comparable evidence to the one-time achievement, the only evidencc that can 
substitute for evidence that qualifies under three of the regulatory criteria. Thus, the submission of one 
type of evidence, anecdotal letters, cannot be considered sufficient extensive evidcnce to meet the 
initial evidentiary requirements for the classification sought. 
In light of the above, we are not persuaded that the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence that is 
comparable to the evidence required under 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three of thc 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Nevcl1heless, we will revicw the 
evidence in the aggregate as part of our final merits determination. 
, . 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian oplmon, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the! ir! field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian. 596 F.3d at 11 19-20. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate, four uncorroborated letters providing anecdotes about the 
petitioner's past accomplishments, does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. More significantly, ~sserts that the 
petitioner left Hoechst in February 2000, more than nine years before the petitioner filed the instant 
petition. The record contains no evidence of any accomplishments after that date. Thus, the evidence 
is not indicative of sustained acclaim proximate to the date the petition was filed. 
III. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
financial manager to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner showed talent as a corporate controller, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(I )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.