dismissed EB-1A Case: Business Development

i 
1dentifj4ng data deleted to 
prevent dearly unwarrmw 
invasion of personal privacy 
FILE: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship i 
and Immigration, 
Services a 
/ 
8 
,Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: APR 0 7 2006 
IN RE: :- Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
x- 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
U, 3 Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 
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. tj 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary 
ability in the sciences and business as a business development manager. The director determined that 
the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim requisite to 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter and 
additional evidence, which does not overcome the deficiencies of his case. The appeal will be 
dismissed for the following reasons. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or 
international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the 
necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the 
weight given to evidence submitted to hlfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. 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. tj 204.5(h)(2). 
Page 3 
We address the evidence submitted and the petitioner's claims in the following discussion of the 
regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim eligibility under any 
criteria not discussed below. 
(0 Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate purportedly honoring his article, "Transnational Corporation's 
Functions in Light Product Exporting," and presented jointly by the China Association of International 
Trade, the Economic Research Institute of Light Industry Ministry, the International Trade Research 
Institute of Foreign Ministry, and the China Light Industry Association on September 25, 1988. The 
petitioner also submitted an award certificate purportedly presented to the petitioner as a "Scientific 
Advanced Individual" by the Shanghai Gao Qiao Petrochemical Company of SINOPEC in December 
1986. 
The copies of these two certificates are printed in Chinese and were submitted with uncertified English 
translations. Any document containing a foreign language that is submitted to Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) must be accompanied by a full English translation, which the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to 
translate from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Because the petitioner failed 
to submit certified translations of the documents, we cannot determine whether the evidence supports 
the petitioner's claim. Id Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any 
weight in this proceeding. 
Moreover, even if the record established the national or international recognition of the petitioner's 
awards, they do not demonstrate the requisite sustained acclaim because they were presented to the 
petitioner 19 and 17 years before this petition was filed. Consequently, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(ii) 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. 
The record contains a purported copy of the petitioner's membership certificate for the Chinese 
Petroleum Society (CPS) issued in November 1990. The copy of the certificate is printed in Chinese 
and was submitted with an uncertified English translation. Again, without a translation certified 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), we cannot determine whether this document 
supports the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and 
will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that the CPS requires outstanding achievements of its members, as 
judged by recognized national experts and submits a printout from the Society's website. The CPS 
Page 4 
printout is in Chinese and is accompanied by a document entitled, "Rules of the Chinese Petroleum 
Society." It is not clear whether this document is contained on the CPS website or if it is an uncertified 
English translation of the Chinese website printout. Regardless, the membership criteria listed on the 
CPS Rules document does not describe outstanding achievements. Rather, the document states that an 
individual member must be working in the field and have "certain influence or [be] an engineer, 
lecturer, assistant researcher and other outstanding scientific workers etc. [sic]" Individual members 
must submit an application, be introduced by another member and be "inspected and reviewed by the 
council or authorized organization." The petitioner submitted no evidence that these criteria require 
outstanding achievements as judged by national experts, rather than professional credentials that many 
individuals in the petitioner's field may possess. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of speczJication for which classzjication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted a document in Chinese which purportedly evidences his judgment of 
"Chemical Plant Project's Testing and Commissioning 2,000 tonlyear ABS Extruded Plant Project." 
The document was submitted with an uncertified and incomplete English translation.' Again, without a 
translation certified pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), we cannot determine whether 
this document 'supports the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. Accordingly, the evidence is not 
probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. The petitioner submitted no other 
evidence that he has judged the work of other individuals in his field in a manner consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. consequently, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien S original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signlJicance in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims he has extraordinary ability in the sciences because he was awarded a 
patent for a pothoiler energy saving cover by the Patent Bureau of the People's Republic of China. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a patent certificate awarded to him and another individual on 
January 31, 1993. The certificate is printed in Chinese and was submitted with an uncertified 
translation. Without a translation certified pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), we 
cannot determine whether this document supports the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. 
Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
Even if the petitioner's patent were properly documented, it alone would not suffice to meet this, 
criterion. To establish eligibility under this category by virtue of patents, a petitioner must not only 
show that his work has been granted a patent, but that the patented invention constitutes a scientific 
contribution of major significance in his or her field. The significance of the patented invention must 
be determined on a case-by-case basis. See Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 
215, 221 n.7 (Comm. 1998). The petitioner submitted no evidence that his pothoiler energy saving 
cover was manufactured, commercially successful, or otherwise had a major impact on his field. 
Page 5 
On appeal, the petitioner also submits four recommendation letters from his former teachers and 
employers. While such letters provide relevant information about an alien's experience and 
accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because 
they do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited 
number of individuals with whom he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, 
letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, 
independent evidence of major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has sustained - national or international acclaim. Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence of 
the petitioner's contributions. 
In a letter dated October 25, 1988, ~rofessor and Leader of the Catalytic Group at 
the East China Chemical Technology University in Shanghai, China, states that he was the petitioner's 
instructor. xplains that the petitioner found that "if we could maintain the primary 
activity of cata yst (norma ly it's high but short-lived , we could increase catalyst activity greatly and 
got the other Id way to choose catalyst [sic]." eports that the petitioner's comments were 
"creative and useful very much [sic]." In another letter dated October 25, 1988, Professor 
and Chief of High Pressure Laboratory at the East China Chemical Technology University, states that 
he "very appreciate [sic] that [the petitioner] dared to mention his own idea to choose Catalyst in high 
pressure for Fluid Catalylic [sic] Cracking (FCC) of Oil Refinery." explains that the 
petitioner's idea was very useful to their research. The record contains no corroborative evidence of the 
petitioner's work in this area and the letters of andare of limited probative value 
because they were written over 16 years before this petition was filed. 
In his letter dated August 8, 1992, chief of the Equipment Department at the Shanghai 
Gao Qiao Petrochemical Corporation, states that he was the petitioner's supervisor and that the 
petitioner was responsible for Energy Saving Technology in his department for eight years. - 
explains that the petitioner "often adopted new technology and materials in his job to save energy 
effectively and reduced petrochemical and chemical fluid leaking obviously, thus reduced air pollution 
greatly; He [sic] was awarded as Advanced Scientific Individual." As discussed above under the first 
criterion, we cannot consider the evidence regarding the petitioner's purported Advanced Scientific 
Individual award because it was submitted without certified translation. The record is also devoid of 
any evidence to support-tatement that the petitioner greatly reduced air pollution during his 
tenure at the Shanghai Gao Qiao Petrochemical Corporation. letter is also of limited 
probative value because it was written over 12 years before this petition was filed. 
In a letter dated December 18,2001, Director of United Professional Services, Pte. Ltd. in 
Singapore, states that the petitioner was a project engineer with his company and "showed commitment 
anddiligence in performing [his] duties, including water and wastewater treatment project designing, 
fabrication, installation and commissioning,, and adopted new products to save energy and monies." 
Although he praises the petitioner's work,- does not indicate that the petitioner made any 
original scientific or business related contributions of major significance to his field while at United 
Professional Services. 
The petitioner submitted copies of two articles that he co-authored with other individuals. These 
articles were printed in Chinese and submitted with uncertified and incomplete translations. Without 
translations certified pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), we cannot determine whether 
these documents support the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. Accordingly, the evidence is 
not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. Even if the articles were properly 
translated, however, the record does not demonstrate that they made major contributions to the 
petitioner's field. The petitioner submitted no evidence that the articles, dated 1989 and 1991, have 
been widely cited by other experts or that they otherwise significantly impacted his field in a manner 
consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 
As noted above under the fifth criterion, the petitioner submitted copies of two articles he co-authored 
in Chinese. The articles were submitted without translations certified pursuant to the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(3). Consequently, we cannot determine whether these documents support the 
petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be 
accorded any weight in this proceeding. Moreover, the articles are dated 14 and 16 years before this 
petition was filed and the record indicates that only the 1991 article was published. The petitioner 
submitted no evidence that his single published article has been widely cited or is otherwise indicative 
of his sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signficantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner states, "I had high salary in Singapore in 1997, compared to others for average 
salary about $2,000 - $2,500, at same period. Because I got high Salary in Singapore, not in China, so 
it was internationally." The record does not support this claim. The record contains a letter dated 
August 2, 1997 from Megaway Development Pte. Ltd. in Singapore which confirms that the petitioner 
was employed by the company as a production manager and that his monthly salary was ~$3,000. The 
petitioner claims that the average salary at that time was "about $2,000 - $2,500," but the record 
contains no evidence to corroborate this claim. Simply going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The petitioner's claim is misguided in two additional respects. First, 
the relevant comparison is not to the average salary of all workers in Singapore at that time, but to 
individuals at the top of the petitioner's field, such that his salary would demonstrate national acclaim. 
Second, the petitioner submits no evidence that his 1997 salary in Singapore was higher than other 
individuals similarly employed in his field in other countries. The mere fact that the petitioner was a 
Chinese citizen employed in Singapore does not show that his salary reflected international acclaim. 
The record also contains no evidence that the petitioner continued to command a high salary consistent 
with sustained national or international acclaim in the over seven years between his 1997 employment 
in Singapore and the date this petition was filed. The petitioner submitted a letter dated April 15,2004 
from Rotary Engineering Limited in Singapore, which certifies that the petitioner was employed as a 
project engineer for the company and that his basic monthly salary was $2,500. The record is devoid of 
any evidence that this salary is significantly higher than other project engineers in the petitioner's field 
in Singapore or comparable to such individuals at the very top of their field in Singapore. Accordingly, 
the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Director S Comments Concerning "Some Chinese Cultural Companies" in Flushing, New York 
In his decision, the director stated: 
[Tlhis service has also discerned that some Chinese cultural companies, many located in the 
borough of Flushing in New York City and claiming to do business in the United States, 
abandoned both immigrant and nonimmigrant petitions when questioned about the bona fides 
of their businesses. Therefore, this casts your alleged profession in a dubious light owing to 
your address in the United States. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of an Application for Alien Employment Certification for the petitioner 
filed by Max-Cell New York, Incorporated located in Flushing, New York. The record contains no 
evidence that Max-Cell is a "Chinese cultural company." Rather, the Form ETA 750 states that the 
nature of Max-Cell's business is "trading and developing." The record contains no evidence that the 
petitioner is associated with any Chinese cultural companies in Flushing. Denial of this petition 
cannot be based upon the serious allegations of the director without evidence offered in support of 
those conclusions. Just as the unproven assertions of counsel are not evidence, neither are the 
unsupported conclusions of the director. CJ: Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n. 2 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The director's comments 
were inappropriate and are hereby withdrawn. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 11 53(b)(l)(A), only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation 
of sustained national or international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of 
his or her field. The record in this case does not establish that the petitioner has achieved sustained 
national or international acclaim as a scientist or business development manager placing him at the very 
top of his field. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), and his 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.