dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: DE C 0 3 
SRC 08 177 53 137 
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. 8 1153(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. 8 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing 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. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
,A!,/ @!b th// 
rj Perry Rhew 
'fir Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification 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 that the petitioner had not sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualifl for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate the receipt of a 
major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5@)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets 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 achevements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (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 have 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. 8 204.5@)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on May 12, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an investment manager. However, on the petitioner's Form G-325A, Biographic 
Information, signed by the petitioner on May 7, 2008 and submitted concurrently with the instant 
petition, he indicated that he has not been employed since December 2006. Moreover, the petitioner 
was employed as a teacher at Newbury college fiom January 2006 to December 2006, as a teaching 
assistant at fiom June 2006 to August 2006, and as a graduate assistant at the 
University of Denver fiom March 2005 to December 2005. At the time of the original filing of the 
petition, the petitioner had not been employed for almost one and a half years. When the petitioner was 
employed, the petitioner's occupations were in education. Even if we were to find that the petitioner 
met any of the regulatory criteria, which we do not, the evidence related to the petitioner in the claimed 
field of financial investment is fiom nearly a decade prior to filing. The statute and regulations, 
however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his national or international acclaim has been 
sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
0 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5@)(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 criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(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 ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. $ 
204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 8 
C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classijication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
indicates that the petitioner passed the-insurance broker qualification exam organized by the China 
May 15, 1999. The petitioner also submitted a Certificate of 
at the petitioner studied the sixth training session and passed 
the examination. 
The petitioner also submitted two documents, which provide brief backgrounds for the examinations 
for insurance brokers and security analysts in China. The documents contain no author, title, or 
source for the information. Even if we were to accept the documents as credible and reliable 
evidence, which we do not, they provide very little, if any, evidentiary value. 
Page 4 
Notwithstanding the above, in order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this 
criterion, a 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 experience, standardized test scores, grade point 
average, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satis@ this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall 
prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather 
than the association's overall reputation. 
- - 
addition to passing some courses. As indicated above, we are notpersuaded that passing qualifying 
exams or that successful completion of courses are outstanding achievements commensurate with the 
requirements necessary to establish eligibility for this highly restrictive classification. The petitioner 
failed to establish that membership requires outstanding achievement as judged by recognized 
national or international experts. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, or business-related 
contributions of a major signiJicance in thejeld. 
The petitioner is claiming eligibility for this criterion for the first time on appeal. Therefore, the director 
did not err in his decision since both at the time of original filing of the petition and in response to the 
director's request for evidence, the petitioner never claimed eligibility for hs criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a reference letter from 
fi stating that the petitioner was instrumental in - business 
development and client-building. further stated that "an investment company enlisted his 
cooperation to enter the insurance broker market to capitalize on his business acumen and expertise in 
risk management." 
The petitioner also submitted a reference letter from - 
stating that the petitioner was "instrumental in 
landing contracts worth millions," and he has "exceptional ability in investment management." 
On appeal, counsel claims: 
As a matter of fact, [the petitioner's] research report about the insurance broker market has 
been adopted by prestigious company as the groundwork for its investments in the 
insurance broker market. [The petitioner's] report of investment feasibility analysis was 
approved by the senior management of 
a leading investment management firm in China. At the time [the petitioner] 
conducted his research, China had no insurance broker. The first insurance broker 
Page 5 
qualification exam signified the beginning of the insurance broker market. Encouraged by 
[the petitioner's] report, decided to invest initially around US $3 million and 
enlisted [the petitioner's] cooperation to execute its investment plan. 
Counsel failed to submit any documentary evidence supporting his 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 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter oflaureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
In this case, the reference letters submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this regulatory 
criterion. We note that the above letters are all from individuals who have worked or interacted with 
the petitioner. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's role in various 
projects, they cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. The statutory 
requirement that an alien have "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of 
recognition beyond the alien's immediate acquaintances. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinion statements as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of 
support from the petitioner's personal contacts in 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. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's 
reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited 
by an alien in support of any immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence or original contributions of major significance that one would expect of an individual who 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Without extensive 
documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed 
throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contribution of major significance, 
we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, 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. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion 
based on his positions as: 
- 
2. Salesperson at - 
3. - 
Page 6 
The director concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that he performed in a leading or critical 
role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. On appeal, counsel 
"demonstrated meat skills in market analysis bv leading a team to fulfill an extensive market 
While the documentation praises the petitioner for his expertise and business skills, the 
documentation, however, does not establish that his positions were leading or critical to these 
companies as a whole. For example, the record does not include detailed job responsibilities 
discussing the nature of the petitioner's duties and significant accomplishments and the importance 
of his role to the companies' operations. The petitioner failed to establish that his leadership or critical 
roles directly led to the success and accomplishments at any of the companies. Further, the petitioner 
has not submitted an organizational chart or other similar evidence showing his position in relation to 
that of the other employees in similar positions at any of these companies. There is no evidence 
demonstrating how the petitioner's roles differentiated him from the other managers or salespeople. In 
this case, the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible 
for the success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and 
indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJcantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
The petitioner submitted a partial English translation of the in 
October, 1998 (Unit: However, the accompanied English translation fails to comply with 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), which requires that "[alny document containing foreign language submitted to 
USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified 
as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
fiom the foreign language into English." As the petitioner failed to submit a full English language 
translation, the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. 
Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
On appeal, counsel claims: 
We would like to point out that [the petitioner's] compensation was high not only 
compared to his peers, but also to the average salary in his position. 
[The petitioner's] monthly compensation at that time was RMB 8,000.00, which was 7 
times of the average wage - a high salary in relation to others in the field. 
Counsel failed to submit any documentary evidence supporting his claim that the petitioner's monthly 
compensation or evidence of how that salary compared to others in the petitioner's field. 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. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez- 
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
Notwithstanding, counsel's reference to the petitioner's salary in 1998, a period of ten years prior to 
the filing of the petition, fails to establish that the petitioner has sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence showing 
that he has commanded a high salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis 
for comparison showing that his compensation was significantly high in relation to others in his field. 
There is no evidence establishing that the petitioner has earned a level of compensation that places him 
among the hlghest paid investment managers. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, the evidence submitted relates to the 
petitioner's work during the decade prior to filing. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner 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 is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. 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 AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. § 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 Janka v. 
U.S. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (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 petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
Page 8 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.