dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC copy 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 NOV 2 5 2009 
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. !j 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.5 for the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided 
your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
3 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
I 
l,/ / ,$@ J (,/; t- / 
/' ' Peny Rhew 
.. 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The director reaffirmed his decision in a subsequent motion to reopen. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), 
as an alien of extraordinary ability in business. The director determined the petitioner had not 
established the beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the 
petitioner had failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally 
recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 
204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner argues that the beneficiary meets the statutory requirements 
and at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the legacy Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very 
high standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 
Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary 
ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, 
however, that the petitioner must show that the beneficiary has sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top level. 
The record reflects that the beneficiary is the beneficiary of a previously approved nonimrnigrant 
visa petition as an alien of extraordinary ability under section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1 101 (a)(l5)(0)(i). While USCIS has approved an 0- 1 nonimrnigrant visa petition filed on behalf 
of the beneficiary, that prior approval does not preclude USCIS fi-om denying an immigrant visa 
petition based on a different, if similarly phrased standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 
immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q 
Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 
48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing I- 129 nonimmigrant petitions than I- 140 
immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. 
Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude 
USCIS fiom denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of the 
beneficiary's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comrn. 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship 
between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a 
nonimmigrant petition on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
This petition, filed on January 29, 2008, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a business executive, specifically as a chief executive officer. 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, 
internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation 
outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the 
sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, 
cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply 
relates to at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether 
the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether 
it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower 
evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary 
Page 4 
ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, it claims, meets the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
In her January 24, 2008 letter accompanying the petition, counsel stated that the beneficiary led 
the Discovery Networks Asia (DNA) "to the receipt of the highly coveted Cable and Satellite 
Channel of the Year Award at the 2004 Asian Television Awards." [Emphasis omitted.] Counsel 
also stated that the beneficiary's "extraordinary contributions to his work in Thailand have also 
been recognized as UBC (United Broadcasting Corporation) was rated as one of the best- 
managed companies in Thailand by Global Fund Managers in 1998." Counsel stated that the 
beneficiary has also been recognized in People at the Peak, Second Edition of The Who's Who of 
Singapore. 
The petitioner submitted photographs of an award indicating that the Discovery Channel was the 
winner of the Asian Television Awards 2004 Cable and Satellite Channel of the Year. The 
petitioner submitted documentation that appears to be from worldscreen.com announcing the 
awards results and a copy of a December 3,2004 DNA news release of the Discovery Channel's 
receipt of the award, indicating that it won the award in two categories: Best Documentary - 31 
minutes or more and Best Entertainment Presenter. DNA also issued a December 18, 2007 press 
release announcing that the company won the award. 
In letters of reference and recommendation supporting the petition, several individuals confirmed 
that the Discovery Channel won the 2004 award and attributed the success of the station to the 
beneficiary. The petitioner submitted no documentation with the petition to establish that the 
Asian Television Cable and Satellite Channel of the Year award is nationally or internationally 
recognized as an award or prize of excellence in the beneficiary's field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE) dated March 21, 2008, the petitioner 
submitted documentation regarding the Asian Television Awards from the on-line encyclopedia 
Wikipedia. With regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the 
reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site.2 See Lamilem Badasa v. 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
2 
 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone 
with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has 
Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we will not assign weight to 
information for which Wikipedia is the only cited source. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner also submitted information retrieved from the website of 
Onscreen Asia, accessed by the petitioner on April 2,2008. The documentation indicates that the 
Asia Television Awards were established in 1996 and "designed to recognize and reward 
program and production excellence." The rules and regulations provide that programs eligible for 
the award are those that are produced by television broadcasters based primarily in Asian 
countries, including Bangladesh, Cambodia, North Korea, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, 
Thailand, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, China, the Philippines, Singapore, 
Australia and New Zealand. Nonetheless, international participation alone does not establish that 
an award is nationally or internationally recognized as a prize or award of excellence in the 
beneficiary's field. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
specifically requires that awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of 
endeavor and it is the petitioner's burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case, 
there is no evidence showing that the Asia Television Awards commanded a significant level of 
recognition beyond the context of the events where they were presented. For example, there is 
no evidence showing that the awards were announced in major media or in some other manner 
consistent with national or international acclaim. The petitioner submitted copies of press 
releases from DNA, information from the website of Onscreen Asia, which appears to be the 
website of the Asia Television Awards, and a single article posted on variety.com on December 
3, 2004. The petitioner submitted only minimal documentation of any publicity accorded to the 
awards in any media other than that associated with the awards. Accordingly, the petitioner has 
not established that the Asia Television Awards are nationally or internationally recognized 
awards of excellence in the beneficiary's field of endeavor. 
The petitioner states that the beneficiary was responsible for the Discovery Channel's receipt of 
the Asia Television Award as Cable and Satellite Channel of the Year Award as he served as 
president and managing director of DNA. While we do not dispute the petitioner's claim that, as 
an executive with DNA, the beneficiary was, to a degree, responsible for the success of the 
Discovery Channel, we cannot ignore the fact that the prize was awarded to the Discovery 
Channel and not to the beneficiary or to DNA. The plain language of this criterion requires the 
alien to document his or her own receipt of the award. Awards presented to a third-party or 
organization are not sufficient to establish eligibility. 
necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, 
accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the 
information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, 
vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge 
in the relevant fields. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiANikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on September 1, 2009, a copy 
of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
The petitioner also submitted a partial copy of a March 18, 1999 e-mail from Basil Sgourdos at 
UBC Television, stating that the company had "placed among 24 Thai companies voted as Best- 
Managed by the Hong Kong-based ASIAMONEY financial investment publication." Mr. 
stated that UBC was ranked 13~" in terms of corporate strategy, best new company and 
best small company, and that the company was selected based on a survey of "270 fund 
managers based in Asia, UK, US, and Europe." The petitioner submitted no documentation with 
the petition that recognition from Asiamoney constitutes a prize or award or that it is nationally 
or internationally recognized as denoting excellence in the beneficiary's field. 
On motion, the petitioner provided information regarding Asiamoney from the company's 
website, indicating that the magazine was launched in 1989 and "has been providing discerning 
reporting and analyses of the ins-and-outs of the financial and investment markets" for those 
with business interests in the Asian Pacific countries. The documentation indicates that the 
publication's "polls" are provided to "reveal how the financial service providers fare against 
each other in the eyes of their clients" and that "[tlhese industry-recognized rankings include 
[the] . . . Best-Managed Companies Poll." In a December 10, 2007 letter, managing 
director for Pencil Media Ptd. Ltd, a publishing company, stated that the beneficiary's 
"management skills were recognized when UBC was voted one of the Best-managed Companies 
in  haila and by Global Fund Managers for 1998." Counsel asserted on motion tiat - 
"acknowledgement of the award, as well as [the beneficiary's] direct contributions to it, evidence 
- - 
the importance and recognition of this award." The petitioner submitted no additional 
information regarding this "award" on appeal. 
The information provided does not establish that UBC's placing atop several polls conducted by 
Asiamoney constitutes a prize or award or that the beneficiary received such an award, much less 
that it is nationally or internationally recognized as a prize or award of excellence in the 
beneficiary's field. 
Counsel also claims that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on his inclusion in People at 
the Peak, Second Edition of The Who's Who of Singapore, which, according to counsel, "is 
bestowed upon the elite of the industry." Documentation provided by the petitioner indicates that 
People at the Peak "is a comprehensive and most [sic] updated volume on the leaders of 
government, business and non-profit sectors." The documentation also indicates that the 
publication is designed to provide "readers with up-to-date information on the movers and 
shakers from various industries." The petitioner submitted documentation regarding the 
circulation of Singapore Press Holdings, the publisher of People at the Peak, Second Edition of 
The W%oJs W%o of Singapore. However, the popularity of the publication is not at issue. The 
petitioner provided no documentation to establish that a listing in People at the Peak, Second 
Edition of The Who's Who of Singapore constitutes an award or prize, or that inclusion in the 
publication is nationally or internationally recognized as an award or prize in the beneficiary's 
field. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Page 7 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzfication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
To demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show 
that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, 
minimum education or work experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. The overall prestige 
of a given association is not determinative. The issue is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner claims that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on his membership on the 
Board of Directors for the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia (CASBAA) and 
as a member of the advising roundtable for the Media 21 project, a committee of the CASBAA. 
Documentation from the CASBAA website indicates that it "is an industry-based advocacy 
group dedicated to the promotion of multi-channel television via cable, satellite, broadband and 
wireless video networks across the Asia-Pacific. CASBAA represents over 125 Asia-based 
corporations." The petitioner submitted no documentation regarding the criteria for membership 
in CASBAA. 
In his RFE, the director instructed the petitioner to "provide evidence establishing the 
membership requirements for each professional organization which the alien belongs." In 
response, counsel stated that evidence of the beneficiary's "outstanding achievements in support 
of his membership with both CASBAA and the Roundtable for Media 21 can be found in expert 
testimonial provided" in the letters submitted with the petition. However, the requirement for this 
criterion is that the organization requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by 
national and international experts in their fields. The petitioner's personal achievements alone 
are not the defining qualifications to meet the criterion. 
On motion, counsel asserted that "what makes [the beneficiary's] membership qualify under this 
criterion is that he is a Board Member for this organization and he was selected to be a part of the 
Roundtable for Media 21 within this organization." Nonetheless, while the beneficiary may have 
been elected to the organization's Board and appointed to an influential position within the 
organization, nothing submitted by the petitioner establishes that CASBAA limits its 
membership to those who have demonstrated outstanding achievement. 
On appeal, counsel asserts: 
It is noted in several expert opinion letters that there are skill and recognition 
requirements for membership and board member status in the [CASBAA]. The 
requirements for membership in this multi-level and complex organization cannot 
be outlined in a general membership summary as the Service states. Such issues 
of membership criteria are best addressed by individuals in the field who are 
closely related to and active members of the organization. These criteria, as well 
as the Beneficiary's qualifications for meeting them, were explained in the expert 
opinion letters provided in the petition. 
We note first that none of the opinion letters submitted in support of the petition address any 
"skill and recognition requirements for membership and board member status in the" CASBAA. 
As previouslydiscussed, the letters submitted by the petitioner address the beneficiary's 
achievements- as an individual but do not state that specific achievements were required for 
membership in the CASBAA or as a member of the organization's Board. For example, in his 
December 7, 2007 letter, 
 stated that he met the beneficiar in his capacity of 
Chairman of the CASBAA when the beneficiary was president of DNA. hstated that 
the beneficiary "has an exemplary depth of understanding of the Broadcasting Industry, both 
- - 
through his work leading various initiatives on behalf O~CASBAA and in driving ~iscov& into 
a leadership position in the Pay television industry in Asia." 
f DNA in Singapore, stated in a December 10, 2007 letter 
that: 
[The beneficiary's] level of experience, knowledge and talent is [sic] a rare 
commodity in this market and his stature and respect in the field of media is 
perhaps best illustrated with his appointment to the top of the industry board of 
CASBAA and his participation on the Singapore Media 2 1 advisory board. 
Counsel references both of these letters in her brief submitted in support of the motion. However, 
she pointed to no language in either letter that describes the membership requirements for 
CASBAA or for board membership. 
Second, nothing in the record supports counsel's assertion that "requirements for membership in 
this multi-level and complex organization cannot be outlined in a general membership 
summary." According to the petitioner's documentation from the CASBAA website, those who 
can join CASBAA include: 
Leading cable and satellite system operators, multinational networks and 
programmers. 
Communications, advertising and marketing executives. 
Suppliers and manufacturers of cable and satellite technology. 
Members of the media, government regulatory bodies, telecommunications 
companies, new media service providers and network enablers. 
Individuals committed to upholding and promoting industry standards. 
Related business service providers. 
The membership to the CASBAA therefore appears to be relatively open. As previously 
discussed, even if the petitioner had established that appointment to the organization's board or 
to its Media 21 project required outstanding achievement, the petitioner has not established that 
CASBAA itself required outstanding achievements of its members. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets 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 classzjication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In order to meet this criterion, published materials must be primarily about the petitioner and be 
printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major 
media, the publication should have significant national distribution and be published in a 
predominant language. Some newspapers, such as The New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of a significant national 
distribution. 
The petitioner submitted copies of articles that were published in various media such as the 
Bangkok Post, Singapore Investment News, C21Media.net, Television Asia, The Straits Times, 
Variety, and Asia Image. Other documentation includes articles apparently retrieved or provided 
by Media Monitoring, and show that they were published in media such as Adlib, Asia Media 
Journal, Media, and Ad Asia. The petitioner submitted no information regarding Media 
Monitoring, but it appears to be a subscription service that retrieves published information about 
their subscribers. 
The April 2004 articles that appear in such publications as the Bangkok Post, Adlib, The Straits 
Times and the Asia Media Journal discuss the loth anniversary of DNA's launch of the 
Discovery Channel. The beneficiary is quoted or interviewed in the articles as DNA's executive 
vice president and managing director. Other articles that, according to the petitioner, appeared in 
media such as the July/August 2004 edition of Television Asia, the October 7, 2005 edition of 
Media, the November 2005 edition of Ad Asia, and the April 8, 2005 edition of Media, include 
reports on the Discovery Channel's market share in Asia. Other articles that appeared in the 
February 5-6, 2005 and November 12-13, 2005 editions of Weekend Today, and the November 
12, 2005 edition of The Straits Times report on programming by the Discovery Channel. Articles 
that allegedly appeared in the March and April 2005 editions of Asia-Pacijc Broadcasting report 
on DNA's introduction and promotion of high definition programming in Asia. The beneficiary 
was interviewed and quoted in these latter articles. An article published in the April 14, 2005 
edition of Asia Image and on C2 1 Media.net on November 12- 13, 2005 reported on a partnership 
between DNA and the Media Development Authority of Singapore. 
A November 6, 2005 article announcing that Discovery Communications had consolidated its 
digital media operations into a new media group does not contain information about the 
Page 10 
pub1 
mail 
in w 
ication or the author, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(iii). A September 28, 1999 e- 
hm hb to n article by m of the Economic Daily 
rhich t e ene iciary was interviewed. However, the petitioner submitted no documentation 
of the actual publication of this article. The petitioner also submitted copies of several articles 
allegedly published between 2001 and 2005, some of which indicated that they were retrieved 
from variety.com or worldscreen.com. Others do not identify the source of the article or an 
author. None of the original articles were provided. 
The director determined that the articles were not about the beneficiary but about the companies 
that the beneficiary worked for and for which he basically served as spokesman, and that unlike 
- with whom counsel compared the beneficiary, the beneficiary does 
not also have a "~lethora" of ~ublished material about him. Counsel takes issue with this 
assessment, arguink that the director Lbmisunderstood" his use of r as 
examples and that the regulation does not require a "plethora of media coverage . . . to satisfy 
this criterion." Counsel asserts that the regulation only "requires that the published material 
about the alien relate to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought." 
We note that the director did not suggest that the petitioner can only establish eligibility for this 
criterion through overwhelming evidence of media coverage. The director merely pointed out 
that published information about and was about them and not limited to 
their positions as heads of their companies. While we agree with counsel that this criterion can 
also be met by published material about the beneficiary's work, we cannot agree that the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner is sufficient to qualify the beneficiary under this 
criterion. 
Most of the articles that appeared in 2004, while quoting or interviewing the beneficiary, focused 
on the loth anniversary of the Discovery Channel, a single event, not on the beneficiary or his 
work. While the petitioner provided additional articles that discuss issues such as the Discovery 
Channel's market share or specific programming, again, these articles are not about the 
beneficiary or his specific work. Regardless, the petitioner failed to establish that any of the 
articles which provide information about the Discovery Channel have been published in 
professional or major media. Attached to the articles fi-om Asia-PaciJic Broadcasting is 
information apparently provided by Media Monitoring, reflecting the circulation of the 
publication. However, the documents do not reflect the source of the information provided, do 
not provide any comparison of the circulation statistics provided, and do not otherwise establish 
that Asia-PaciJic Broadcasting is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided information about Asia-Pacific Broadcasting 
from the company's website. The company indicated that it had been in business for 25 years; 
however, the company's longevity alone does not establish it as a professional or major trade 
publication or other major media. The petitioner provided no other documentation regarding Asia 
Image or C2 1 Media.net. 
The petitioner claims that the beneficiary also meets this criterion based on his appearance in 
People at the Peak, Second Edition of The Who's Who of Singapore. Appearing as one of 
thousands or even hundreds of other successful individuals in a frequently published directory is 
not evidence of published material about the petitioner in major media nor is it indicative of 
national acclaim. 
The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
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 speciJication for which classiJication is 
sought. 
The petitioner claims the beneficiary meets this criterion based on his nomination to serve as a 
judge at the 2004 Asian Television Awards and an invitation to him to serve as a panelist with 
the Asia PaciJic Broadcasting magazine. The petitioner submitted a copy of an April 26, 2004 
letter fiom the Asian Television Awards asking the beneficiary to sit on one of its regional juries 
and to nominate another jury member, and a copy of what purports to be an invitation from Asia 
Pacific Broadcasting for the beneficiary to be a panelist with Asia PaciJic Broadcasting 
magazine. The document does not indicate that the duties of a panelist include judging the work 
of others. 
In her letter accompanying the petitioner's response to the RFE, counsel asserted that although 
the beneficiary did not "personally act as a jury member," he nominated a senior vice president 
as a member and that "[ilt is in this capacity that he has served as a judge of the work of others in 
the field of international business." On motion, counsel stated: 
We concede that the Service may not honor the Beneficiary's nomination as a 
judge for the awards because the Beneficiary did not accept the nomination. 
However, the fact remains that the Asian Television Awards are the only event in 
the region to showcase, recognize, and reward program and production excellence 
in Asia. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence of the alien's 
participation as a judge of the work of others. Therefore, it is not a question of USCIS 
"honoring" the beneficiary's nomination to serve as a panel if he has never in fact participated as 
a judge. Further, the petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that the beneficiary's 
selection of another individual to serve as a jury member for Asian Television Awards was in the 
capacity of a judge of the work of another rather than merely naming another person to sit on a 
panel. 
Counsel also asserted on motion that: 
[Tlhe beneficiary was invited as a panelist to the Asia Paczjic Broadcasting 
magazine specifically to provide his opinion on current events in the industry . . . 
As the Beneficiary was continually asked for his opinion on the industry, we 
Page 12 
submit that this qualifies in the category due to the fact that his opinion was 
actively sought after and discussed. 
Nothing in the record, however, supports this assertion of counsel. The "invitation" from APB 
indicated that a panelist would be asked to "submit one opinion each year" to be published in the 
APB, and that "[flrom time to time our Deputy Editor may contact you to ask for your comment 
or quote on a particular story we may be running." The petitioner, however, submitted no 
documentation to establish that the beneficiary "was continually asked for his opinion on the 
industry." The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he was invited to or appeared 
as a panel speaker on topics such as "Satellite: Limitless Benefits for Television," "Key Issues 
Facing the Cable & Satellite Pay TV Industry in Asia," "Cable TV Distribution & 
Programming," and "Dare we suggest Singapore as the Broadcasting Hub for Asia." The 
petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that any of the panels on which the 
beneficiary served was in the capacity as a judge of the work of others. Counsel asserts on appeal 
that the beneficiary meets this criterion because he "presented his opinion and judgment on 
current events in the industry to other individuals in the field." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires the petitioner to establish that the alien has judged the work of others. 
Presenting one's comments on industry events, without more, is not evidence that the beneficiary 
has judged the work of others. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjkance in the field. 
As evidence that the beneficiary meets this criterion, the petitioner submitted letters from several 
individuals attesting to the "impact" the beneficiary "and his accomplishments have had on the 
field." For example: 
In a December 10,2007 letter, 
 a managing director of BBC Worldwide Ltd., stated: 
[The beneficiary's] major achievements included the launch of the first 
international High Definition TV service, the launch of an annual Discovery 
sponsored First Time Film Maker documentary production event and the creation 
of a $7.5m production fund with the Singapore Economic Development Board, to 
help build the local documentary production industry. A number of the producers, 
who received awards and funding from these initiatives, have gone on to win 
further honors at the annual Television Asia Awards show. These 
accomplishments benefited Discovery, the Discovery Asia staff, the local 
production industry as well [as] Singapore's economy and the Cable and Satellite 
industry in Asia as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted no documentation to support the claims of regarding the 
beneficiary's impact on the industry or Singapore's economy. Further, while the beneficiary's 
efforts may have led to increasing documentary production in Singapore, it is not clear from Mr. 
letter that the beneficiary's acluevements constitute original contributions or that they 
were contributions of major significance to his field. 
outlined the beneficiary's achievements as a business executive and his contributions to the 
companies that he worked for. also stated that the beneficiary "has shown through his 
important contributions to the international media industr 
 that he is truly a remarkable 
innovative manager and businessman." However, does not specifically identify the 
beneficiary's "important contributions" to the industry and does not state that they were of a 
major significance to his field. 
[The beneficiary] is also able to present original ideas, strategies and solutions 
realistically and logically, taking account of major growth potential as well as 
acknowledging challenges and presenting solutions. 
In the multi-faceted chaos of a new and fast-developing industry, [the 
beneficiary's] integrity and credibility was invaluable for both the image and 
perception of the international brands for which he worked as well as for the 
broader industry. He was also known for championing business causes that 
contributed to the good of the industry as a whole. These included credible 
research into the size of the region's multichannel advertising pie at a time of 
widespread confusion and sometimes-deliberate obfuscation. He continues to be 
widely respected in Asia for his contribution as Managing Director of Discovery 
Networks Asia, as well as to platforms such as UBC in Thailand, and MWeb in 
China. 
More specifically, [the beneficiary] was a key member of the team that reinvented 
IBCIUBC in Thailand from 1996, turning two fragmented and largely unviable 
businesses into a mature, stab le company able to navigate the Asian economic 
crisis sparked off in mid-1 997 with the devaluation of the Baht. 
Although 
 stated that the beneficiary's was known for championing business causes, 
she does not identify any original contributions of the beneficiary. She stated that he conducted 
"credible research into the size of the region's multichannel advertising pie" but did not explain, 
and the petitioner provided no documentation, as to how this research benefited the petitioner's 
field. 
In a December 2, 2007 letter, 
 of Turbo Media 
Enterprises and HD Theater for Discovery Communications, stated that the beneficiary "has 
been responsible for many innovative and vitally important 'firsts' and pioneering events in the 
field of Global New Media." He then lists several accomplishments that he attributed to the 
beneficiary and for the benefit of the Discovery network.did not state how the 
beneficiary's accomplishments, while benefiting the Discovery network, was also of benefit to 
his field of endeavor. stated in his December 10, 2007 letter that he "can 
categorically state that [the beneficiary] has played a major role in the development of 
International Media." However, other than stating that the beneficiary served 
director, chief operating officer and chief executive officer of several companies, 
did not identify any specific contribution by the beneficiary to the development of international 
media and no contribution of major significance to the beneficiary's field of endeavor. 
Counsel also claims in her letter submitted with the petition that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion based on his "involvement in an advisory role to Singapore's efforts in becoming a 
global media city and his "significant efforts to develop Singapore's local production 
community." The petitioner's evidence indicates that the beneficiary was a part of the media 
roundtable in the Media 21 project. However, the petitioner submitted no documentation to 
establish that the beneficiary's efforts in the project yielded any contributions that constituted a 
contribution of major significance to his field. 
The director initially determined that the beneficiary did not meet this criterion as the petitioner 
had not demonstrated that the beneficiary had made an original contribution that had a 
"demonstrable influence on the field or set a standard for which others aspire." On motion, 
counsel again asserted that the beneficiary's accomplishments have been "explained by sixteen 
qualified business executives in their letters detailing unique business ventures and industry 
firsts" and again claimed that the beneficiary was a "key member of the Singapore Media 21 
advisory board" and states that the evidence includes "documentation from independent 
publications about the Media 21 project [that] shows some of the Beneficiary's original 
contributions to the field." 
The director concluded, without discussion, that the beneficiary meets this criterion. However, 
we do not concur with the director's decision and withdraw this determination by the director. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 8 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would 
have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see 
also Janku v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de 
novo authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 
997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The reference letters attest to the beneficiary's contributions to the companies for which he 
worked at the time, indicating that the beneficiary had initiated programming and projects that 
helped the companies grow and prosper. We do not dispute that the beneficiary was a successful 
and resourceful executive. However, the letters do not specify and the other evidence of record 
does not establish that any of the beneficiary's contributions significantly impacted his field of 
endeavor as a whole. The petitioner must not only establish that the petitioner made an original 
contribution but that the original contribution must have had a significant impact on the 
beneficiary's field of endeavor. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
We concur with the director's determination that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijkantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner stated in a January 22, 2008 letter that it had offered the beneficiary annual 
remuneration in the amount of $350,000. However, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) 
requires evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration. Accordingly, the petitioner's 2008 salary offer is not evidence that the beneficiary 
commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration prior to the date the petition 
was filed on January 28, 2008. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l) and (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Comm. 1971). 
The petitioner also claims that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on his remuneration of 
$460,000 (including a 40% bonus) with DNA in Singapore and $660,000 (including a 40% 
bonus) with Discovery Communications, Inc. (DCI). The petitioner submitted copies of two 
earnings statements for the beneficiary for the period October 29 to November 11, 2007 and 
from November 12 to November 25, 2007 from Discovery Shared Services. The latter statement 
indicates that the beneficiary's year-to-date earnings totaled approximately $791,478, consisting 
of his regular pay, "Ltd Prem," "DAP," incentive pay and retroactive pay. Nothing in the record 
explains "Ltd Prem" or "DAP" earnings and therefore the AAO cannot determine whether these 
were regular components of the beneficiary's remuneration. 
Counsel asserts that the beneficiary's remuneration consisted of a 40% bonus. However, no 
evidence in the record supports counsel's assertions. Without documentary evidence to support 
the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter oflaureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez- 
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
The petitioner also submitted information from the Foreign Labor Certification Online Wage 
Library and Data Center, indicating that, from July 2007 to June 2008, chief executive officers in 
the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, California area earned up to $201,677 per year. The 
petitioner also submitted information from the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor 
Statistics indicating that in May 2006, the median annual wage nationally for chief executive 
officers was $144,600. Documentation from "careeronestop" does not offer specifics regarding 
Page 16 
wages for chief executives above the 25% level, showing only that those at the median level and 
above earned in excess of $145,600. 
In his RFE, the director advised the petitioner that it had provided no documentation reflecting 
the remuneration of top echelon chief executive officers. In response, counsel asserted: 
The Petitioner has evidenced fulfillment of this criterion based on the field of 
Business per the regulations rather than the field of Chief Executive Officers as 
stated by the Service. The top echelon of wage earners within the field of 
Business is held by individuals who have served in the roles of executive officer. 
The Petitioner has established that [the beneficiary] is not only a part of the top 
echelon of wage eamers in the field of business as demonstrated by his history of 
executive roles with the Discovery organization, but has further established that 
even within that top echelon, [he] has earned an extremely high salary as 
compared to the mean earnings of the highest wage earners in the field of 
Business. [Emphasis in the original.] 
Counsel presents a contrary argument on motion, stating: 
[W]e submitted the wage for "Chief Executives." In contradiction to the general 
category of Business that the Service has used in this Denial, here it appears they 
are asking us to establish what the top echelons of business men are earning. In 
submitting government data that states the average wage of what Chief 
Executives are making both in the city where the position is offered and 
nationally, we are adhering to the criteria stated in the regulations. 
In denying the motion, the director again noted that the petitioner submitted documentation of 
only the median or average wage of chief executive officers. On appeal, counsel again asserts: 
In accordance with the regulations, we submitted evidence of the mean wages for 
chief executives in California. We submit that this evidence shows how the 
Beneficiary's salary compares to "others in his field." The Beneficiary is a top 
executive in the field of business, which is what this wage survey illustrates. 
The petitioner also submits additional documentation from Payscale, which reflects the median 
salary for a vice president of operations in the United States. 
As the director correctly determined in each of his decisions, the petitioner's documentation 
shows the top earnings for chief executive officers in a limited area in California. Therefore, the 
documentation does not establish the earnings of chief executive officers beyond this specific 
region. Additionally, the petitioner's documentation of salaries earned by chief executive officers 
in the United States report only those at the median salary level. The petitioner's evidence 
therefore does not reflect the salaries for the upper half of the labor market. Accordingly, the 
petitioner's evidence does not establish that the beneficiary's remuneration is significantly high 
relative to all others in his field. Merely showing that the beneficiary's salary is high in relation 
to only a particular region or the lower half of his field is not sufficient to meet the requirements 
of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) and this highly restrictive visa classification. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 204.5(h)(4) states: "lfthe above standards do not readily apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility." [Emphasis added.] The regulatory language precludes the consideration 
of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for visa preference in 
the beneficiary's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation. 
However, we will briefly address other evidence the petitioner submitted under this provision. 
Counsel asserts that: 
Due to his renown, [the beneficiary] has had the pleasure of being involved with 
projects that have been visited and endorsed by President of the Republic of South 
Africa, Nelson Mandela; attended meetings with prime Minster of New Zealand, 
Helen Clark; and advised on meetings with President of the Republic of South 
Africa, Thabo Mbeki. 
Additionally, [the petitioner provides] confirmation of [the beneficiary's] renown 
in the industry through request to share his knowledge at conference and meetings 
throughout the world. As one of the field's foremost experts, [the beneficiary] is 
continually invited to numerous forums to share his expert opinion and industry 
insight. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a "Certificate of Endorsement" Erom Nelson Mandela in 
support of The Remote Village Project for the People's Republic of China, photographs of the 
beneficiary with President Mandela, a copy of an invitation to breakfast with Prime Minister 
Clark, and an e-mail to the beneficiary regarding a meeting with President Mbeki. However, 
while the documentation reflects that the beneficiary met with high profile individuals, it does 
not establish his standing as one of the few individuals who has achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level of his field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that the beneficiary had appeared or had been 
invited to appear as a panelist at several forums. We have previously discussed the beneficiary's 
role as a panelist under the criterion listed at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(iv): 
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 his field of endeavor. Review of the record, 
however, does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself to such an extent that 
he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the beneficiary is a well- 
respected and successful business executive. However, the evidence submitted is not persuasive 
that the beneficiary's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.