dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

(b)(6)
DATE: 
NOV 1 5 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W ., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b )(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF 
OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:/ /www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~(r;?J__ 
{7-
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). 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 . See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
The petitioner's priority date established by the petition filing date is September 26, 2011. On June 15, 
2012, the director served the petitioner with a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the 
petitioner's response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on September 17, 2012. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a brief with additional documentary evidence. For the reasons discussed below, the 
petitioner has not established his eligibility for the classification sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability.-- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international · 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his 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 ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
On appeal, counsel relies on Buletini v. INS, 860 F.Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), for the propositions 
that the evidence a petitioner submits under each criterion need not demonstrate extraordinary ability 
and that USCIS may not add requirements to those that appear in the regulation. While correct, a more 
detailed discussion of these issues appears in a recent circuit court decision. In 2010, the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition filed under this 
classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the 
AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence 
submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO' s evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Standard of Proof 
On appeal, counsel asserts that instead of applying the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, 
the director applied a "higher standard by expecting that the Petitioner demonstrate in each separate 
criterion that the Beneficiary is extraordinary." The record does not support counsel's assertion that the 
director held the petitioner's evidence to an elevated standard beyond that which is required by most 
administrative immigration cases, the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. The most 
recent precedent decision related to the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof is M after of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). This decision, and this standard, focus on the factual nature 
of claims within evidence; not whether such claims satisfy a regulatory requirement. !d. at 376. The 
preponderance of the evidence standard does not preclude USCIS from evaluating the evidence. The 
Chawathe decision also stated: 
[T]he "preponderance of the evidence" standard does not relieve the petitioner or 
applicant from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements set by regulation. There are 
no regulations relating to a corporation's eligibility as an "American firm or 
corporation" under section 316(b) of the Act. Had the regulations required specific 
evidence, the applicant would have been required to submit that evidence. Cf 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) (2006) (requiring that specific objective evidence be submitted to 
demonstrate eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability). 
25 I&N Dec. at 375 n.7. The final determination of whether the evidence meets the plain language 
requirements of a regulation lies with USCIS. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 
795 (Comm'r 1988) (finding that the appropriate entity to determine eligibility is USCIS in a scenario 
whereby an advisory opinion or statement is not consistent with other information that is part of the 
record). Ultimately, USCIS determines the truth not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (citing Matter of E-M- 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 
1989)). The Chawathe decision further states: 
Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is 
"more likely than not" or "probably" true, the applicant or petitioner has satisfied the 
standard of proof. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987) (discussing 
"more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance of an occurrence taking place). If 
the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the director to either 
request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to believe that the claim 
is probably not true, deny the application or petition. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
/d. As the director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted relevant and probative evidence 
satisfying the regulatory requirements, the director did not violate the appropriate standard of proof. 
The standard of proof issue is separate and distinct from counsel's assertion that the director may have 
gone beyond the regulatory requirements, which the AAO will address below. The record supports the 
director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner did not submit probative evidence to establish his 
eligibility. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) , the evidence must establish that the alien is the 
recipient of the prizes or the awards (in the plural). The clear regulatory language requires that the 
prizes or the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulation 
also requires the petitioner to submit evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence in the field 
of endeavor rather than simply for participating in or contributing to an event or to a group. The 
petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided evidence related to the 
The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the 
requirements of this criterion. 
Counsel's appellate brief indicates that the director erred in stating that the primary purpose of the 
petitioner 's prizes or awards must be to recognize excellence in the petitioner's field and that nothing in 
the regulation supports this position. While the director discussed this aspect within the RFE, the 
director omitted this discussion within his final decision. As such, it is not necessary to address it 
within this decision. 
Throughout the proceedings, the petitioner asserted only one award under this criterion, the 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of 
"prizes or awards" in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). Significantly, not all of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When 
a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it 
states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." 
Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different 
context, federal courts have upheld users' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. 
Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 
2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" 
foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of 
academic credentials). Therefore, even if the petitioner demonstrates that the is a 
qualifying award under this criterion, it is but one award and cannot satisfy the regulatory requirement 
of more than one qualifying prize or award. 
Regarding whether the issued its research prize for excellence, the petitioner initially provided 
information about the prize from the issuing organization describing the award and the guidelines for 
the award's issuance. This evidence, in addition to the evidence submitted in response to the RFE, 
sufficiently demonstrates that this prize is for excellence in the petitioner's field. 
The petitioner also asserted that because five academics and leading practitioners in the field from 
multiple countries supported the nomination letter for this prize, and because the presented this 
prize at its annual seminar in France, that the prize received international recognition. National and 
international recognition results, however, not from the individuals who were willing to write 
supporting letters if requested by the judging panels, but through the awareness of the accolade 
in the eyes of the field nationally or internationally. This recognition can occur through various means; 
for example, through media coverage. A national or international level competition may issue lesser 
awards that merely receive local or regional recognition, which do not meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. Additionally, unsupported conclusory letters from those in the 
petitioner's field are not sufficient evidence that a particular prize or award is nationally or 
internationally recognized. 
Regarding whether the is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award, the petitioner initially submitted two forms of media that contain the same article; a November 
16, 2010 article from and an article from the December 2010 issue of 
While the evidence in the form of an article from appears on a website, the 
petitioner provides no evidence to establish the popularity of the website such that coverage on the site 
is indicative of the national or international recognition in the field. The record lacks evidence that 
www.pmforum.org is an online version of media with a national reach. Notably, the author's name 
does not appear on this article and "blog" appears within the web address. Thus, the petitioner has not 
established that this article represents journalistic coverage of the prize. 
National or international accessibility by itself is not a realistic indicator of a given website's reputation. 
is nationally and internationally broadcast, and as a result, the 
website is significant and content posted on the web site can be considered indicative of national 
recognition. The petitioner has not presented any evidence to establish that the content from 
can be considered to receive national or international recognition. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Regarding the article's appearance in the petitioner provided no information relating 
to the circulation or the distribution data of this publication and thus, the petitioner may not rely on 
to establish that this prize is nationally or internationally recognized. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the 
petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish that he meets every element of this criterion. In this instance, there is no 
documentary evidence demonstrating that this prize is recognized beyond the presenting organization 
and a blogger on 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
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. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that he is a member of more than one association in his field. Second, the petitioner must 
demonstrate both of the following: (1) that the associations utilize nationally or internationally 
recognized experts to judge the achievements (in the plural) of prospective members to determine if the 
achievements are outstanding, and (2) that the associations use this outstanding determination as a 
condition of eligibility for prospective membership. 
The etitioner claims eligibility under this criterion based on his membership in the 
in addition to his service on the board of trustees and as a 
trainer of this same association. The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the 
requirements of this criterion. Specifically, the director concluded that the petitioner did not provide 
evidence of the requirements for membership in The director also concluded that the petitioner's 
position on the was an elected position and that the petitioner did not 
demonstrate either of these memberships requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
Counsel asserts that the director did not discuss, nor did he consider all of the evidence on record. The 
petitioner identified the letter from the Chairman of the 
Specifically, counsel quotes Ms. letter that provides the number of 
members on the board of trustees, in addition to indicating that the board of trustees are well-known 
representatives from universities, experienced experts or consultants with extraordinary ability in the 
field of project management. That the petitioner was elected to the is not an 
example of membership in an association in the petitioner's field. Further, Ms. did not 
indicate that election on the board of trustees requires outstanding achievements of its members. The 
petitioner addresses other letters submitted on his behalf relating to his membership on the board of 
trustees, however, the petitioner provided no evidence that being a member on the board of trustees 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
satisfies the plain language of this criterion, which requires membership in qualifying associations in the 
field. 
The petitioner provided the statute in a foreign language and an excerpt translation into English in 
response to the RFE. The translation is not accompanied by a translator's certification that the 
translation is "complete and accurate ," as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b ). Therefore, 
this evidence has no probative value. As the director did not raise any concerns regarding the 
statute translation, this decision will provide an analysis of its contents. The statute translation is 
only an excerpt and it omits the membership requirements for this organization. It does provide that 
has three membership levels, corporate members, personal members, and honorary members. 
The petitioner did not document his membership level. The statute also described the 
and indicated that the members are elected to serve on the board rather than being admitted to 
membership in an association based on outstanding achievement as required by the regulation. Even 
relying on the statute translation, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that his membership in 
or on its Board of Trustees satisfies the regulatory requirements under this criterion. 
Within the appellate brief the petitioner also claims eligibility as a Control Committee member 
but did not establish that this committee membership requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
Regarding the petitioner's claims of eligibility based on his status as a trainer within the 
November 2005 letter from Chairman of the Board, reflected that the trainers 
must prove his or her expertise during a "standard certification process." Such a process does not 
comport with the regulatory requirement that the petitioner demonstrate outstanding achievements as 
one of the conditions of membership. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
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. 
This criterion contains three evidentiary requirements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the published 
material must be about the petitioner and the contents must relate to the petitioner's work in the field 
under which he seeks classification. The published material must also appear in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media (in the plural). Professional or major trade publications are 
intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the publication should 
have significant national or international distribution and be published in a predominant national 
language. The final requirement is that the petitioner provide each published item's title, date, and 
author and if the published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must provide a translation that 
complies with the requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). The petitioner must submit evidence 
satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion as t?e 
submitted material was not about the petitioner. 
Within the initial filing, the etitioner claimed eligibility under this criterion based on two articles that 
appeared in This publication constitutes a professional publication. 
Both articles are in a foreign language and are accompanied by certified summary translations. The 
certified translations do not comply with the regulatory requirement at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3) that any 
foreign language document be accompanied by a full English translation. As the director did not raise 
this as an issue and afford the petitioner the opportunity to remedy the incomplete translation, the AAO 
will accept the January 2010 article as featuring a personal interview with the petitioner such that it is 
about him and relates to his work in the field. 
The second article, dated March 2011, appeared in this same publication. However, the summary 
translation reveals that this published material is not about the petitioner; the article only mentions him 
in one sentence within a seven page article. The correspondence within the initial filing statement, in 
response to the RFE, and in counsel's appellate brief each state that the petitioner is "explicitly 
mentioned" in this article. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), however, 
requires that the published material be "about the alien." See Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d 
535, 545 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2012); also see generally Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ 
at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show or a character within a show 
are not about the performer). 
The director's decision indicated that the petitioner did not establish that the published material was 
about him. The decision did not indicate whether this determination was related to both articles or just 
one. As discussed above, while the January 2010 article sufficiently meets the regulatory requirement, 
the March 2011 article does not. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires evidence of published material in "professional or major trade publications or other major 
media" in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
documentation. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. 
Consequently, the single qualifying article noted above is not sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner 
has satisfied this criterion's requirements. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he meets this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions (in the plural) in his field. These 
contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the 
contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final 
requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather 
than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) 
quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner provided several expert letters as evidence under this criterion. The director determined 
that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. Specifically, the director stated: 
You submitted evidence in the form of opinion letters by experts in the field. These 
letters establish the high esteem in which you are held by several clients and industry 
professionals and that you have contributed to the field. However, the evidence does not 
demonstrate the major significance of your original contributions ... While your 
contributions are no doubt of value, you failed to submit any documentary evidence 
demonstrating that your work has been unusually influential or impacted the field. 
Counsel's appellate brief asserts that the director dismissed the letters in support of the petitioner's 
claims under this criterion without according them sufficient evidentiary weight. 
Within the appellate brief counsel states that the petitioner "contributed a pioneering concept as a 
member of a team of three experts, which formed a partnership from three different organizations 
working in different fields that was awarded the 2010 ~ for its work on a project 
titled by radical re-thinking of " Counsel continues: "The originality 
and major significance of this particular contribution is clear based on the evidence presented above 
under 'Criteria I' [the prizes or awards criterion]." Counsel asserts the following factors demonstrate 
this contribution is original and of major significance: 
• 2010 was the first and only instance that the issued this award as no other work was 
sufficient to meet the high standard of the award; 
• The reason the panel awarded the was "to push forward the boundaries of Project 
Management and [to] develop a new approach to solving the problems of complexity. Building 
on research that, in one case started in 1990 and recognizing the synergy between the 
approaches, generates a new paradigm for Project Management." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
• Others in the field have verified the prestige of this award; 
• Various publications have written about the prize indicating how it provoked 
widespread commentary. 
• interviewed the petitioner and discussed his work, supporting the contention that his 
contributions are of major significance. 
The evidence relating to the prize indicated that the prize recognized the entity "that produces 
the most worthy piece of applied research in support of ... It is the hope of 
the that this award will enable further work to proceed in order to generate a ractical 
framework for practitioners in the field of Complex Projects." This evidence appears on 
letterhead, but there is no author name and title, author's signature or date on this document. It also 
does not bear any indicia of deriving from an official publication or website, such as pagination 
or a web address. Further, the document does not reflect that issued this prize to recognize 
contributions in the petitioner's field that have already come to fruition, which is required under this 
criterion. Rather, stated that it hopes the award will help additional work to proceed. 
Within the appellate brief, counsel also identifies several expert letters previous! submitted within the 
proceedings before the director. The first letter, dated July 26, 2012, is from President of 
the and Vice President of 
Marketing and Events for the _ _ Mr. 
indicated that the petitioner's work is important, that it benefits those in the project management 
industry, and that the petitioner has put together at least one forum where international project managers 
share and discuss modern results affecting trends in project management. Mr. stated that the 
petitioner's "special contribution is his ideas and concept for a modern incentive and motivation 
system." Mr. identified this contribution as "a major step to create a better fit between the human 
reward system and the enterprise reward system." Mr. id not did not specify how the petitioner's 
work has impacted the field, nor did he indicate that the petitioner's ideas have resulted in changes in 
the field. As discussed in greater detail below, Mr. letter has little probative value because of its 
use of boilerplate language that also appeared in other letters the petitioner submitted as evidence. 
Counsel asserts on agpeal that the letter from Dr. Chairman of the ~-
"confirms [the petitioner's] contributions of major 
significance to the field." Within Dr. December 19, 2005 letter, he provided the 
petitioner's history both in the field and with Dr. also indicated that the petitioner 
led a 
national study, presented the results at an international conference, and took over the position as 
the project coordinator of a separate international study. That the petitioner has assisted with a national 
study and is coordinating an international study is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner has 
made original contributions in his field that are already of major significance. The petitioner did not 
provide evidence demonstrating or explaining how these studies have had an impact within his field. 
On appeal counsel also identifies the letter from Dr. Professor of Management and 
Director of Technology and Project Management Programs at as qualifying 
evidence under this criterion. Dr. indicated within his letter that the petitioner is well 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
recognized within the project management field, and it is through his published works that the petitioner 
has impacted the field. Dr. ;tated: 
His state-of-the-art work, published in word-class [sic] journals and presented at 
conferences, clearly demonstrates originality and scholarly excellence . . . [the 
petitioner's publications] have not only contributed significantly to the body of 
knowledge in this contemporary field of management, but also inspired many other 
scholars in their research and teachings. 
Although Dr. utilized the language found in the regulation, he did not provide examples of 
how the petitioner's publications have contributed significantly to his field. Repeating the language of 
the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 
724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 
1990). The petitioner did not document that his published work has been influential within the field. 
Dr. a professor at the asserts that 
the petitioner's "work has often been cited by leaders in academia and business for his ability to 
integrate among multidisciplinary concepts and processes, such as project management, product 
development and technology management." The record does not contain a citation index or other 
evidence of citations to corroborate Dr. conclusory statement. 
Counsel also discusses the letter from a board member of on a ~eal. Ms. 
asserts the petitioner has made a great contribution to the 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires the petitioner to 
have made contributions in his field rather than to a single association. Although Ms. 
indicated the petitioner "has led the way with his research into the parallels between neuroscience and 
project management," she did not describe the impact that the petitioner's research has had in his field. 
Ms. s letter also does not contribute to the petitioner demonstrating his eligibility under this 
criterion. 
Counsel also refers to letters from the petitioner's clients. While the content of these letter may be 
relevant to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the letters do not contain examples 
establishing that the petitioner has made contributions that rise to the level of major significance in his 
field. 
Counsel further asserts that the petitioner's invitations to present at conferences satisfy this criterion. 
Although such invitations may demonstrate a level of interest in the petitioner's ideas, the petitioner did 
not demonstrate how such invitations constitute contributions of major significance in the petitioner's 
field. At issue is the impact of these presentations upon completion. The record contains no evidence 
that the petitioner's presentations ultimately impacted the field. Finally, counsel references a letter from 
Dr. the Dr. 
~.-~ 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
. indicated that the petitioner was awarded an internal title as a Visiting Expert with the university, and 
that the university invited the petitioner to work with students. Dr. letter did not explain how 
the petitioner's work at this university has impacted the field. 
The Board of hnmigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998); Matter 
of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 218 (BIA 1985)). 
The Board clarified, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. at 1332. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1136. 
Letters that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific examples of how those 
contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 
2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the 
AAO's conclusion that "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 1122. The 
opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. While such 
letters can provide important details about the petitioner's skills, they cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 
2008). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. I d. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's 
reputation are important considerations. 
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he meets this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
This criterion anticipates that a leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall 
organizational hierarchy and that it be accompanied by the role's matching duties. The petitioner also 
has the responsibility to demonstrate that he actually performed the duties listed relating to the leading 
role. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the organization or the 
establishment's activities. The petitioner's performance in this role should establish whether the role 
was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. The petitioner must demonstrate that the 
organizations or establishments (in the plural) have a distinguished reputation. While neither the 
regulation nor precedent speak to what constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam-Webster's online 
dictionary defines distinguished as, "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. "3 Dictionaries are 
not of themselves evidence, but they may be referred to as aids to the memory and understanding of the 
court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 306 (1893). Therefore, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate 
that the organizations or establishments claimed under this criterion are marked by eminence, 
distinction, excellence, or an equivalent reputation. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all 
of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided several letters from businesspersons accompanied by information relating to 
each business. The director determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate that 
enjoyed a distinguished reputation and that the petitioner's performance as a 
consultant or an advisor with did not qualify as a leading or critical 
role. Ultimately, the director determined the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner asserts on appeal that the director did not consider all the submitted evidence and asserts 
that the more than one dozen letters support his eligibility under this criterion. The petitioner's primary 
eligibility claim relates to his work for As evidence, the petitioner 
submitted a letter dated September 20, 2011 from The letter does not reflect Mr. 
position within the organization. Mr. confirms an offer to the petitioner to continue his 
employment under the title, General Manager. Mr. did not provide the job duties that the 
petitioner had been previously performing for this organization, rather Mr. lists the petitioner's 
future duties. USCIS will not presume that the petitioner already performed in a leading or a critical 
role for simply from his title within the·organization; additional probative, 
corroborating evidence must also be part of the record. Mr. letter stated: "Since his transfer to 
the United States, (the petitioner] has performed in a critical role for customers of A 
discussion of the petitioner's role for the company's customers follows. Regarding the petitioner's role 
for itself, Mr. stated within his letter that the petitioner's "profound 
and pioneering expertise has allowed to build a professional international project management 
group to consult with automotive clients in the United States." Mr. did not however, establish the 
role that the petitioner played in the creation of this project management group, nor did Mr. 
3 See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished, accessed on November 15, 2013, a copy of 
which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
establish the impact that this group has had on The materials from 
website, which the petitioner submitted, indicate that the company has the 
following competencies in addition to project management: process management, process outsourcing, 
strategy consulting, cost optimization, market research, procurement, brand strategy, Human Resources 
Management, Innovation Management, Software Solutions, Change Management and Sales Consulting. 
Without an explanation of the petitioner's role for as a whole, the petitioner 
has not provided evidence sufficient to establish that his performance for this company is qualifying 
under this criterion. 
The regulation requires that the petitioner perform in a leading or critical role for the organization or the 
establishment that enjoys a distinguished reputation, not that he performed in this manner for its 
customers. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Since Mr. letter claims the petitioner performed in a 
critical role for customers, it is necessary for the petitioner to submit 
evidence relating to these customers, to establish that these customers' organizations or establishments 
enjoy a distinguished reputation. While it is possible for a consultant to perform in a leading or critical 
role, he must provide evidence that the organization or establishment for which he consulted enjoys a 
distinguished reputation. He must also provide evidence establishing the manner in which he 
performed in a critical role for the organization or establishment for which he consulted. As the 
petitioner has not provided evidence relating to the organizations or establishments that Mr. 
referenced in his letter, the petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to satisfy the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Within the March 24, 2011 letter from Director of Program Management at 
Mr. spoke highly of the petitioner, but did not describe the role the petitioner performed 
as a contractor for Mr. provided a description of key elements necessary for 
the project to be successful, but he did not indicate that it was the petitioner who was key to the success 
of the ongoing project. Regarding the distinguished reputation of while the petitioner 
submitted website printouts from the website, the petitioner failed to submit any 
independent, objective evidence establishing that it has a distinguished reputation pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 
2007) af('d 317 Fed.Appx. 680 (91h Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self­
serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from former Vice President and Director of 
Purchasing at in the United States. Mr. stated that the petitioner was 
instrumental in developing and implementing a project management improvement program and supplier 
management and tracking process. Mr. did not explain the importance of this program to 
as a whole. Further, the record lacks evidence demonstrating that 
in the United States enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
The letter from _ , former President and CEO of established that 
the petitioner performed in a leading or in a critical role for the organization. However, the petitioner 
did not submit evidence relating to the organization's reputation to demonstrate its distinguished nature 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
in line with the regulatory requirements. The remaining letters from 
customers either fall short of establishing that the petitioner performed in a leading or in a critical role 
for the organization, did not establish the organization's distinguished reputation, or a combination of 
these two shortcomings. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Professor of Mechanical Engineering at 
Professor indicated that the university invited the 
petitioner to be a member of the Mechanical Engineering Department Advisory Board and to serve as 
Industrial Advisor for Doctoral Students Dissertation Committee. The professor also stated: 
In his role as Program Director for the implementation of Statewide Dual Education 
System in Michigan, [the petitioner] plays an important and crucial role and was able to 
integrate multiple stakeholders from industry, academic, education and government. We 
are also members of the steering committee on this vital educational program for the 
young men and women in Michigan. 
While Professor indicated that the petitioner's performance may have impacted a department 
or division within the university, he did not indicate how the petitioner's performance as the Program 
Director was crucial to as a whole. 
Further, language contained in some of the supporting letters is similar. 
General Manager of R&D at 
letter from contain such language. Mr. 
language (grammar as it appears in original): 
The undated letter from 
and the March 14, 2011 
letter provided the following 
During the years ... we had to face a complex and complicated situation ... Due to the 
special needs of the organization we needed a person who was very international 
knowledgeable and experienced in all aspects of the project management field and 
fundamental experiences in different cultures. We found [the petitioner] to be an expert 
in all of these areas. He played a leading role with crucial impact to our success in the 
project management field. [The petitioner] was heavily and critical involved in the 
improvement initiatives and was leading the many different aspect of the concept, 
implementation and realization. 
During these activities we found [the petitioner] to be an excellent coach and advisor as 
well as management instructor. Without [the petitioner's] drive and input I sincerely 
doubt that we would have been successful with the implementation. 
If you have any further questions in this regard please don't hesitate to contact me 
directly. 
Best regards ... 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
Mr. letter contains similar language. As a general concept, when an alien has provided 
affidavits from different persons that contribute to the alien's eligibility claim, but the language and 
structure contained within the affidavits are notably similar, the trier of fact may treat those similarities 
as a basis for questioning the claims of the alien. See Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 
438 P.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006). When affidavits contain such similarities, it is reasonable to infer that 
the alien who submitted the strikingly similar documents is the actual source from where the suspicious 
similarities derive. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 489 P.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007). 
Because the letters appear to have been drafted by someone other than the purported authors, the letters 
possess little probative value. In evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from Quality Analysis Manager for of 
America in which Mr. asserted that the petitioner performed in a critical role for the company 
through his international and functional expertise facilitating their project management with the 
corporate office as well as with its United States based dealers and customers. 
of America enjoys a distinguished reputation. The plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role 
for "organizations or establishments" in the plural, consistent with the statutory requirement for 
extensive documentation. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Therefore, this single instance of the 
petitioner meeting this criterion's requirements will not serve to satisfy the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
As the petitioner did not submit probative evidence to meet the regulation's plural requirement, the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
C. Summary 
The petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.P.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 P.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination. 4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 
The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination 
as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of 
the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).