dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of pemnd priv@y 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: HAY 1 9 2000 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to the 
office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
qobert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. $ 1 153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualifi for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director does not address the "unrebutted" evidence submitted. 
Counsel misunderstands the director's concerns. The director did not allege that the evidence was not 
credible. Rather, the evidence submitted consists mostly of the petitioner's credentials and unsupported 
opinions provided by the petitioner's colleagues. While we do not doubt the sincerity and credibility of 
these witnesses, reference letters are not the type of objective evidence mandated by the regulatory 
criteria. As will be discussed in more detail below, the general assertions of the petitioner's colleagues 
that he meets various criteria are insufficient as they are unsupported by detailed explanations and 
corroborating objective evidence that the petitioner is known beyond his immediate circle of 
colleagues. Ultimately, the evidence establishes only that the petitioner is qualified for the job he 
performs and has earned the respect of his employers and their clients. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained'national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien 
has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set 
Page 3 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classifjr the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a "superintendent 
(planner/scheduler)." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, international recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation 
outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained 
acclaim necessary to qualifjr as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence 
that, he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
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 alliedJield of speclJication for which classfication is sought. 
Counsel has never asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion and the director concluded that no 
evidence was submitted for this criterion. We acknowledge the submission of a letter from - 
a project planner with International Project management, who asserts that his letter to support 
the petitioner's eligibility for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability "in the field of: 
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." We note that judging the work of others is 
one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet at least three, and not a "field." 
~r. discusses the petitioner's membership in the "Project Management & Control panel." This 
panel evaluated a delayed construction project and recommended replacing the subcontractor, which 
was done. The same panel also recommended an ultimately successful change in dike mat covering for 
a leaking dike. In his letter dated February 14, 2005, Mr. asserts that he has known the petitioner 
for two years and that they worked together on the 1 Project together. The 
petitioner's curriculum vitae, however, indicates that the petitioner worked on that project from 
September 1995 through March 1997. The record does not resolve this discrepancy. 
Mr. 
 letter is insufficient to establish that the petitioner's responsibilities for the panel can serve to 
meet this criterion. The evidence submitted to meet any criterion must be indicative of or at least 
consistent with national or international acclaim if the statutory standard is to have any meaning. 
Duties inherent to an alien's position cannot serve to meet this criterion. For example, every coach 
evaluates his athletes, every instructor evaluates his students and every first line supervisor evaluates 
his subordinates. These duties simply do not set a given coach, instructor or supervisor apart from 
others in the same occupation. Similarly, not every coach, instructor or first line supervisor enjoys 
national or international acclaim. Without additional evidence as to whether the panel on which the 
petitioner served was a panel of those already assigned to the project as part of their normal job duties 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
or a panel of independent experts solicited from several employers, we cannot evaluate the significance 
of the petitioner's participation on this panel. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signrficance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters from his immediate circle of colleagues as evidence to meet this 
criterion. The director concluded that the letters did not establish that the petitioner did any more than 
perform his job duties competently. At the end of the decision, the director noted that the record lacked 
evidence that the references were experts in their field. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director ignored "'ovenvhelming" evidence that the petitioner has 
made business related contributions to his field. Counsel asserts that the references explain the 
significance of the petitioner's plans and schedules, which are "used to forecast manpower and 
equipment requirements in order not to jeopardize the overall plan of the oil-welllrefinery 
construction." The petitioner submits his "work product, specifically the schedules of the 4-wells 
developed at the Bankgo and Batang North Area and which were developed, maintained and monitored 
by the petitioner." 
We will evaluate the letters below, although we will not consider the letter purportedly fiom Tim Isaac 
as it is unsigned. The opinions of experts in the field, however, while not without weight, cannot form 
the comerstone of a successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791,795 (Comrn. 1988). However, 
CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters fiom experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; CIS may .evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the 
alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS 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. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
As discussed above, Mr. Tan discusses the petitioner's valuable input on the project he oversaw. While 
this praise establishes that the petitioner has the skills and knowledge to perform his job, it does not set 
the petitioner apart fiom others in similar positions. The petitioner's contributions to his employers and 
their clients are not contributions to the field of business as a whole or even planning and scheduling 
specifically. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner worked for PT Tripatra Engineers and Contractors (Tripatra). = 
Manager of the COS 
 ' ' ' ' '-"I North Operation Unit at Tripatra, asserts that the 
Page 5 
petitioner is a "dedicated professional" with a "record of performance in the field." More specifically, 
Mr. asserts that the petitioner communicates and works well with clients to review project 
progress and improve product schedules and milestones. The petitioner "developed a [sic] master 
project schedules and histograms that is [sic] used to forecast manpower and equipment requirements 
including cost control." The petitioner is also "computer literate." Once again, these statements merely 
establish that the petitioner has the skills needed to fulfill his job duties. Mmtinues (grammar 
as it appears in the original): 
[The petitioner] is a recognized as outstanding in the field of Oil Well / Refinery 
Engineering Planner and Scheduler is one of very few and valued member of our team 
who has risen to the top field of their field and works well with clients representatives / 
coordinators and his fellow staff and non-staff. Base on the above, I could say that [he] 
has good qualities as a Oil Well / Refinery Engineering Planner and Scheduler, Projects 
Controls and I have no hesitation in recommending him for his future endeavors. 
Mr. 
 does not support his vague assertions with specific examples of the petitioner's influence 
beyond his employers and their clients. 
-, Project Director for Holland-Ballast-Thiess, discusses the petitioner's work on the 
- Mr. expresses his pleasure with the petitioner's job and recommends him for 
future projects. Mr. 
 does not provide any examples of the petitioner's influence in the field. 
The petitioner provides a similar letter from - Finance and Administration Manager for 
Commonwealth Indonesia. 
The above letters are all from the petitioner's collaborators and immediate circle of colleagues. While 
such letters are important in providing details about the petitioner's role in various projects, they cannot 
by themselves establish the petitioner's national or international acclaim. By definition, acclaim 
requires recognition beyond one's immediate circle of colleagues. Moreover, letters containing mere 
assertions of widespread acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that 
specifically identi@ contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have 
influenced the field. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
, Project Manager for - Construction, Inc. Mr. - 
appears to be an independent reference rendering an opinion based on the petitioner's curriculum vitae 
and reference letters. Mr. 
 does not indicate that he had ever heard of the petitioner or his 
work prior to being requested to provide a reference letter. Such letters are not as persuasive as letters 
from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through his reputation 
Mr. 
 discusses the importance of the petitioner's occupation. Specifically, planners and 
schedulers coordinate all available information into a master and deviation plan and schedule so that a 
project proceeds efficiently and is cost-effective. Without expert planning and scheduling a project 
Page 6 
could be jeopardized. Mr. ontinues: 
[The petitioner's] expertise as an Oil-WellIRefinery Engineering PlannerIScheduler has 
made business related contributions of major significance in the field. He created plans 
for the planninglscheduling and cost estimate (manpower, materials and equipment to 
be used), and maintains [the] project' execution plan, master construction project 
schedule. His plans are business related contributions of major significance in the field 
because oil companies and other industry companies have used his plans to ensure that 
the projects run smoothly, safely and efficiently. 
Mr. 
 letter confirms that the services of a competent plannerlscheduler contribute to the 
smoothness of a project and that the etitioner, as a plannerlscheduler, developed such plans which 
benefited his employer. While Mr. I) expresses his personal opinion that such plans constitute 
contributions of major significance to the field, he does not explain their influence on the field beyond 
ensuring that the individual project runs smoothly. The petitioner did not submit general or trade media 
coverage of projects on which the petitioner worked noting the significance of their planning and 
scheduling or similar evidence that the petitioner's work has been recognized beyond his employers. 
The record does not suggest that most or even many projects in the industry are seriously delayed or fail 
due to average planers and schedulers such that the completion of projects on which the petitioner has 
worked sets him apart from his peers. We are not persuaded that planning and scheduling work on an 
individual project that has received no recognition for its planning and scheduling constitutes a 
contribution of major significance to the field. 
Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new 
materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or 
international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. The 
petitioner's work product, submitted on appeal, is evidence that he works but not evidence of the 
impact of this work in the field as a whole. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. See Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters., 519 U.S. 202, 
209 (1997); Bailey v. US., 516 U.S. 137, 145 (1995). To be considered a contribution of major 
significance in the field of business, the petitioner's impact in the field should be readily apparent 
beyond his employers. In this matter, the petitioner has not established that he has developed widely 
utilized planning and scheduling software or that his methods have been widely acknowledged and 
utilized in the field. Rather, he has served his employers in a competent fashion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Charles George, Assistant Resident Manager with Tripatra, asserts that the petitioner meets this 
criterion based on his work as an oil-well refineries engineering construction planner and scheduler, 
also known as a project controls superintendent. More specifically, the petitioner "has been overseeing 
the oil well construction development and maintenance for the past three years" and "plays a lead role 
in coordinating major critical projects requiring teamwork: contractor coordination, and client 
personnel leading to increasing production of oil 1 gas." sserts that the petitioner was a 
"key member" of Commonwealth Indonesia's Project Controls Department. Finally, Mr. - 
asserts that the petitioner played a leading or critical role for his employers "in coordinating major 
critical projects requiring teamwork, contractor coordination, and client personnel leading to increasing 
production of oillgas." This language appears to derive from Mr. letter. Mr. 
further notes that the petitioner supervised Indonesian national employees. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that he had done anything beyond his 
job duties. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director ignored the "overwhelming evidence" that the 
petitioner was a "leading figure" for his employers. Counsel references the letter from Mr and 
the petitioner's work product submitted on appeal. 
The director's analysis is not particularly relevant to this criterion. Simply doing one's job can be 
sufficient to meet this criterion if that job is one that is leading or critical for the employer. Specifically, 
at issue for this criterion are the job the petitioner was hired to fill and the reputation of the entity that 
hired him. 
We are satisfied that Tripatra enjoy lly. According to = 
Chief Civil Engineer for 
 is the largest engineering 
management and EPC company in Indonesia. We acknowledge the submission of evidence discussing 
the importance of planner/s~hedulers to oil and gas construction projects. Similarly, architects are vital 
to the sound construction of a building. Not every architect, however, plays a leading or critical role for 
a large architectural firm beyond the obvious fact that such a firm must employ competent and talented 
architects. Without the organizational charts for the petitioner's employers demonstrating the number 
of planners and their location within the hierarchy, we cannot evaluate whether every plannerlscheduler 
plays a leading or critical role for the employer beyond the employer's need to employ a competent 
plannerlscheduler. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signrJicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in thejeld. 
Mr. asserts that the petitioner "commands a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for his services as an oil well 1 refinery engineering planner and scheduler." Mr.montinues: 
As compared to others similarly situated, [the petitioner's] salary is above those of his 
peers. As an expatriate, he demonstrates a high level of commitment to the job and 
provides expertise and manages construction sites at one of the largest oil companies in 
Indonesia. Not only does [the petitioner] receive a high salary but he also is provided 
with deluxe accommodations, an individual car, 35-working days (7 weeks) paid 
vacation leave per year, free airfare plus travel allowances and other fringe benefits that 
are not given to others. 
The director concluded that bare assertions, without evidence of comparative salaries in the field, were 
insufficient. On appeal, counsel references the letter from Mr. Baig and asserts that the petitioner's 
remuneration should be compared "in relation to others who are in comparable circumstances, as 
opposed to American salaries." 
While we concur with counsel as to the standard of comparison, the petitioner did not submit sufficient 
evidence to meet this criterion. First, the petitioner did not submit objective evidence of his 
remuneration, such tax returns, pay statements or an employment contract listing his benefits. In fact, 
Mr. does not even specify the amount of the petitioner's remuneration. Simply going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Crajl of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Second, the petitioner did not submit evidence, such as official 
Indonesian labor statistics, that would allow us to compare his wages with the most experienced and 
renowned individuals in the same occupation, including expatriates. Significantly, the record does not 
establish that it is unusual for large companies with multinational clients in Indonesia to include 
accommodations and travel expenses in the benefits packages of their expatriate employees who must 
relocate to Indonesia. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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 
plannerlscheduler 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 shows talent as a plannerlscheduler, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. 
In addition, an application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law 
may be denied by the MO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 
1989)(noting that the MO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). While not raised by the director, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
Page 9 
No offer of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States 
nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must be 
accompanied by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue 
work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) fiom prospective 
employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her 
work in the United States. 
The petitioner is currently working for an Indonesian company in Indonesia. He has not provided 
letters fiom prospective U.S. employers, evidence of prearranged commitments or even his own 
statement detailing his plans on how he intends to continue working in his occupation in the United 
States. 
For the above stated reasons, considered both in sum and as separate grounds for denial, 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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.