dismissed EB-1A Case: Business Development And Commercialization

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-S-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 11, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an individual who works in the field of business development and commercialization, 
seeks classification as a person "of extraordinary ability" in business. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(1)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The Director, Texas Service 
Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate 
their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements 
have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which 
requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria. 
I. LAW 
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 Uni'ted 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. 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-S-
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets fmth two different methods by which a petitioner can demonstrate extraordinary 
ability sustained by national or international acclaim and the recognition of the petitioner's 
achievement in the field. First, a petitioner can submit evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Second, a petitioner can submit evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 CTR. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming our proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
we appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "each piece of 
evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of 
the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
The Petitioner indicates he has extraordinary ability in the field of business development and 
commercialization. On appeal, he states he has demonstrated his extraordinary ability by submitting 
evidence that meets nine of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in thefield of endeavor. 
According to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must 
establish that a petitioner is the recipient of the prizes or the awards. The Petitioner provided 
evidence regarding the following four awards: 
• Most Innovative Access Device (awarded to ); 
• UK's Most Innovative Mobile Company Award (awarded to ); 
• Young Turks Innovation Award (awarded to ); and 
• Asia Pacific Mobile Learning Initiatives Recognition 2012 (awarded to 
1 
We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner claims 
to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-S-
The Director determined that the evidence the Petitioner provided regarding these awards did not 
meet the regulatory criteria because it did not establish that the Petitioner received the awards, that 
the awards related to excellence in the Petitioner 's field, or that the awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the evidence he provided regarding these awards does in fact 
meet the regulatory requirements. The Petitioner states that, although the awards went to 
and he is responsible for their achievements because he was a regional CEO of both 
companies and, therefore , was the lead person responsible for all the business they had done leading 
up to the awards. He notes that the Director accepted that he performed in a leading or critical role 
for the companies under a separate criterion. He also emphasizes the news coverage and prestige 
surrounding the awards. 
While the separate criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h(3)(viii) looks at the role the Petitioner performed 
for an organization or establishment , the relevant regulatory language for this criterion requires 
evidence of the Petitioner 's "receipt" of qualifying awards or prizes. For each of the awards listed 
by the Petitioner, the award was given to the company for which he worked, not to the Petitioner 
himself. While the Petitioner may have been instrumental to the success of the companies , it 
remains that he is not the recipient of the award. 
Even if we in principle allowed the Petitioner to rely on awards his employers received, the 
Petitioner is not the founder of those companies and he has not provided persuasive evidence that he 
was responsible for the recognized achievements . The Petitioner 's a sserts that crediting him with 
the achievements of and is "self explanatory as he was the CEO Asia for both the 
companies. ". Without documentary evidence to support his claim, however, the assertions of the 
Petitioner will not satisfy his burden of proof. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter o[Treasure Craft ofCaltfornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The Petitioner provided a letter from CEO and founder, indicating that 
a United Kingdom company with business operations in Canada, was founded in 
hired the Petitioner in February of 2006 as the company 's head of operations in Asia. 
Regarding the Petitioner 's involvement with the company's award-winning devices, stated 
that the Petitioner appointed Indian distributors and successfully participated in 
2006. He also soft launched the in the Asian market. further stated that the 
Petitioner finalized a data deal with in India for an 
extremely low price, which helped the company get a deal with 
Although stated that the Petitioner performed important work for , the 
description of the Petitioner's role does not indicate that the above awards recognized the 
Petitioner's work. For example , the Petitioner headed the soft-launch in 2006, less 
than one year after his initial hiring and there is no evidence that he is a listed inventor on the patents 
underlying this innovation. This information suggests that the Petitioner had little, if any, 
involvement in the product 's initial development. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ~f H-S-
The Petitioner provided a similar letter from the president and CEO of 
, headquartered in California. _ _ indicated that the Petitioner joined the 
company in 2011 as CEO Asia and "played a vital role in launching a new product line to market a 
Productivity Suite of Android Apps." In addition, the Petitioner signed deals with more than a dozen 
leading companies. As with the evidence does not reflect that the 
Petitioner was involved with the development of the product that served as the basis for the award. 
Although letter confirms the Petitioner was instrumental in securing data coverage 
and distribution deals, the record does not contain evidence to demonstrate that this work was the 
basis for the award. 
In addition, the regulatory language requires that the awards or prizes were given for "excellence in 
the field of endeavor." The Petitioner has identified his field of endeavor as business development 
and commercialization. Given the information about the awards in the record, however, the 
Petitioner has not established that each of the above awards was given for excellence in those areas 
rather than for the technology and development of company products. 
Regarding the Most Innovative Access Device awarded to 
article from an unidentified source entitled, " 
the Petitioner provided an 
. - . 
The article described the awards ceremony as follows: "These 
will identify and recognize outstanding contributions to the field of 
communications, ICTs, multimedia and infrastructure, offering well-deserved congratulations to 
companies which have shown outstanding research, development and innovations in the ICT sector." 
It further stated that was awarded the to recognize the 
company 's breakthrough web delivery platform , describing the "unique technology [that] reduces 
bandwidth consumption. " According to the article, the underlying technology is the subject of 
several international patents. The record does not indicate that the Petitioner is a listed inventor on 
any patent. In light of the above, the technological and engineering aspect of the company's 
accomplishments served as the basis for its award. 
In 2011, was also awarded the ~ as 
according to an article. An article from 
reveals it similarly won the UK's for 
"developing and manufacturing the that retails for just 
" Each of these articles confirms that received awards for the invention of its 
revolutionary product , not for work in the area of business development and commercialization. 
Finally, explained in its May 5, 2012, letter congratulating 
that the Asia Pacific Mobile Learning Initiatives Recognition "is given to an organization or 
institution that has taken steps to provide mobile learning." Even assuming this award includes 
recognition for business development and communications strategies, the Petitioner has not 
2 The source of the article is not provided. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-S-
established that this award is nationally or internationally recognized. The Petitioner submitted a list 
of prior awardees and keynote speakers at the event. This information does not demonstrate the 
recognition of the specific honor received beyond the awarding entity. The Petitioner did not 
submit any media coverage in the trade or general media. As a result, the Petitioner has not satisfied 
the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the .field for which class(fication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or.fields. 
To satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must first document that he is a member of an association in his 
field. Second, a petitioner must demonstrate: (1) that outstanding achievements in his field are a 
requirement for membership in the association, and (2) that nationally or internationally recognized 
experts are the one to make the determination of outstanding achievements. The Petitioner provided 
evidence that he served as a Working Committee Member of the 
from 2004-06 and 
and from 2007-2009. The Director 
determined that the documentation of record did not meet the requirements of this criterion because 
it did not reflect that outstanding achievement is a requirement for membership in the association, or 
that such achievement was judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes the prestige of being selected first as a Working Committee 
Member and then as a . He does not specifically address the 
above-mentioned concerns the Director articulated. 
The association in which the Petitioner served in a leadership position, is a business trade 
organization with 2,300 members, which works to facilitate business partnerships between Indian 
and foreign companies. According to the Petitioner, all hardware and software companies are 
members of Included in the record is an document entitled "Rules for Election to 
Members of Committee of Administration & Office Bearers and Regional Chairmen." The 
document indicates that, to be eligible for election, the candidate must be a member. Members must 
have been associate members for at least three consecutive years and represent an entity with 
specific average annual exports . 
The Petitioner has not established that a number of years of associate membership and the level of 
average annual exports required are outstanding achievements. While the Petitioner has performed a 
leading role for he has not shown that his roles were a separate level of membership within 
for which requires outstanding achievements. Regardless, the document further states 
that full members of the committee select the higher leadership of the association by vote. The 
Petitioner did not provide evidence that the full membership consists of nationally or internationally 
recognized experts in the field, or that full members must vote in accordance with whom they judge 
to have outstanding achievements in the field. As a result, the Petitioner has not satisfied the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-S-
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the jieldfor which class?fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
To qualify, the published material must be about the petitioner and specifically relating to the 
petitioner's work in his or her stated field of extraordinary ability. The Petitioner provided 
numerous articles regarding the mobile communications industry and the work of and 
other companies. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this 
criterion because, among other things, the articles provided are not about the Petitioner. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that, because he is a business developing expert, "any articles 
published about him are in reference to product news creating disruptions in existing technologies 
and references by other Industry stalwarts as expert comments about the upcoming technologies ." 
The Petitioner specifically references an article from entitled, 
_ _ 
' in which he is twice quoted regarding He further 
summarizes the article by stating : 
The article in this Weekly talks about the future of Data-centric converged devices 
which were new at the time but are evolving now as a result of all the tech seeding in 
those years. [My] actual work is to position the newly developed innovative product 
as a solution to the existing problems of the customers. 
The Petitioner seeks to consider articles regarding the mobile device market and product 
development as material about himself. Although Petitioner's work in the field of business 
development and commercialization has occurred primarily within the mobile communications 
industry, an article about the mobile communications industry is not one about the Petitioner, 
relating to his work in the field. In the submitted article from for 
example, the products of several different companies are referenced and Nokia, Sony Ericsson, 
Motorola, HP, BlackBerry, Palm and 02 are identified as the leading players. Although the 
Petitioner is quoted in the article, his cited statements are about The 
article is not about the Petitioner and his work, but about the market and developments in the mobile 
communications industry. 
The Petitioner provided additional articles, some of which are more specifically about and 
its Although the Petitioner performed work for relating to the 
articles about the company and its products are not necessarily about the Petitioner , 
relating to his area of expertise. The articles focus on products and their revolutionary 
nature, not on the Petitioner's role in the business development and commercialization for the 
company. Finally, the record includes articles about trends in information technology, which quote 
the Petitioner as a member of These articles are also not about the Petitioner, relating to his 
work. As a result, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-S-
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of spec(ficationfor which classification is sought. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that he served as the chief guest at The Director 
dete1mined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion because he did not show 
he served as a judge. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his primary role as chief guest to 
was "to inaugurate this function and judge the participants in the field of technology 
innovation and motivate them to pursue their dreams." 
According to the evidence provided, was a one-day IT fest held at 
As evidence regarding his participation in the event, the Petitioner provided 
an advertisement for the event, an article about the event, and emails from event organizers. The 
emails from confirm that the Petitioner served as a judge of the various competitions. 
Given the Petitioner's focus on the development and commercialization of technology, the record is 
persuasive that he was judging the work of others in an allied field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient?fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the .field. 
The evidence must establish that the contributions are not only original, but rise to the level of major 
significance in the field as a whole. To constitute a contribution of major significance, the 
petitioner's work must have significantly impacted the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also 
Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-136. The Petitioner originally provided five letters of support, 
including letters from the CEO of the CEO of and the Executive Director of 
All of these letters praise the Petitioner 's work and discuss how he was instrumental to the 
success of the companies and the association. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion because, 
although he demonstrated the significance of his work to the companies and associations with which 
he worked, he did not show the significance of his work to the field of business development and 
commercialization. On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes the importance of the deals he brokered for 
and the impact of tablet launch. His brief states: "Even the deals done today are 
based on the relationships developed by [the Petitioner] .... His skills ha[ve] made a trend 
setter for low cost Internet mobile devices i.e., the low cost tablets which [are] impacting millions [of] 
poor people worldwide." 
Although the Petitioner has demonstrated that he significantly contributed to the success of 
he has not articulated how his work has impacted the field of business development and 
commercialization as a whole. The Petitioner indicates that he brokered deals and formed relationships 
that continues to rely on today. However, these deals and relationships are specific to 
and the Petitioner; they do not apply to the field as a whole. The Petitioner has not 
articulated any original work that has impacted the field of business development and 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-S-
commercialization. As a result, the Petitioner has not satisfied the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the .field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 
The plain language of this criterion requires that the petitioner is an author of scholarly articles in the 
field in which he intends to engage once admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent 
resident. Scholarly articles generally report on original research or experimentation, involve 
scholarly investigations, contain substantial footnotes or bibliographies, and are peer reviewed. 
Additionally, while not required, scholarly articles are oftentimes intended for and written for 
learned persons in the field who possess a profound knowledge of the field. The Petitioner provided 
several articles in which his name is mentioned. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
meet the requirements of this criterion because the articles are not scholarly in nature, but instead 
report news. On appeal, the Petitioner states that, "a scholarly article for an International Business 
Developer and Commercialization Expert is in the form of various news coverage in the major trade 
media and publications regarding his commercialization efforts." He then identifies an article 
regarding the technology industry in as well as others that quote him on the state of the 
industry. 
The articles provided are not themselves evidence of the Petitioner's authorship of scholarly articles 
in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media. First, the plain 
language of this criterion requires the Petitioner's "authorship" of qualifying articles; however, the 
Petitioner has not provided an article he authored. Second, the articles must be scholarly. The 
articles provided do not report on original research or experimentation , involve scholarly 
investigations, or contain substantial footnotes or bibliographies. Instead, they are news articles 
documenting deals, developments, and trends. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) reads: "If the above standards do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility." On appeal, the Petitioner states that, "a scholarly article for an 
International Business Developer and Commercialization Expert is in the form of various news 
coverage in the major trade media and publications regarding his commercialization efforts." In 
order to demonstrate that the news articles provided are comparable to scholarly articles, the 
Petitioner should explain why ( 1) the standards do not readily apply to his occupation, and (2) the 
news articles by others are comparable to scholarly articles by the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner does not directly address either of these requirements. However, even if the 
Petitioner established that the standards of this criterion do not readily apply to his occupation, he 
has not provided evidence or an explanation as to why the news articles provided are comparable to 
scholarly articles. The articles provided are about the communications and IT industries generally, 
or about the accomplishments of and as companies. Articles about a company's 
product, quoting the Petitioner as the spokesperson of that product , are not comparable to scholarly 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-S-
articles, in which the author reports on his own research in the field, typically in a peer-reviewed 
journal. 
In addition, it is the Petitioner's burden to explain how newspaper articles about the industry, even 
when quoting the Petitioner, are comparable to scholarly articles. The Petitioner submitted an article 
entitled published in which quotes the 
Petitioner in his capacity as a Member of the Working Committee of the on the state of the 
communications and IT industries in . It is clear that the article 's author relies heavily on an 
interview with the Petitioner for the article's content. However, whereas a scholarly article 
represents the culmination of hours of work of research, followed by peer-edited drafts, the 
Petitioner has not provided evidence to indicate that his interview with the newspaper article's 
author is comparable to such work. The peer review process allows other experts to evaluate a 
scholar's work for originality and accuracy. In the case of however, the 
Petitioner has not provided evidence to suggest that his statements were critically evaluated by other 
members of his field. Finally, the article does not suggest the interviewer was soliciting the 
Petitioner's findings or opinions based on past research or other work. Giving an interview as the 
spokesperson of a committee is not comparable to presenting one's own findings. 
As a result, the articles submitted are not comparable evidence and do not satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
According to the plain language of this criterion, the petitioner's work must have been displayed at 
artistic exhibitions or showcases. The Petitioner provided evidence that he has attended various 
conferences and exhibitions. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the 
requirements of this criterion because he did not provide evidence of the display of work that was 
his, or evidence of display at an artistic exhibition or showcase. On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
"Work was displayed at and was awarded at the show." He also 
references the display of at exhibitions. 
The Petitioner's attendance at various technology and trade conferences does not equate to the display 
of his own work at an artistic showcase. Although the Petitioner indicates that displayed its 
products at conferences, these events were not showcasing the Petitioner's own work in the field of 
business development and commercialization, but instead involved the exhibition of tablet 
product. As discussed above, operates out of Canada since whereas the Petitioner 
began representing the company's already developed products in the Asia market in 2006. The record 
does not contain patents listing the Petitioner as an inventor. In addition, the trade shows and 
conferences identified by the Petitioner are not artistic exhibitions or showcases. The Petitioner is not 
an artist and has not created tangible pieces of art that were on display at exhibitions or showcases. 
As a result, the Petitioner has not satisfied the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-S-
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organization s or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner demonstrated eligibility for this criterion. A review of 
the record reflects that the Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence to show that he 
performed in a leading role for an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation , as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) . Specifically, the Petitioner served as CEO for India 
Operations and then CEO, Asia & Senior Vice President, for , a company whose 
distinguished reputation is apparent from awards it has won and the media coverage. The record 
also shows that the Petitioner performed in a leading role for Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
met this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the fi eld. 
The petitioner must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that he has earned a "high 
salary" or "significantly high remuneration " in comparison with those performing similar work 
during the same time period. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1994) 
(considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 
934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer 's salary versus other NHL 
enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL 
defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
The Petitioner provided evidence regarding the average salary for someone in his field. An internet 
print-out dated October 18, 2013 from the Association of Executive Search Consultants states: "The 
base salary for senior-level executives in the Asia Pacific region during the year ended Sept 30 was 
$243,642." The Petitioner also included a print-out from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics stating 
that the U.S. national salary estimate for chief executives in May 2013 was $248,760. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate he commanded a high salary compared to others 
in his field because he did not submit evidence of his own salary. 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates he has received multiple offers from companies who seek to hire 
him. However, the Petitioner has not submitted documentation regarding previous salary or other 
remuneration , such as non-salaried compensation , bonuses, stock options , etc., that he received for 
his work. Without any such documentation , the record as it cunently stands does not contain 
evidence that the Petitioner commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services in relation to others in the field. As a result, the Petitioner has not satisfied the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
\0 
Matter of H-S-
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must show that the 
Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. Had the Petitioner submitted the 
requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in accordance with the Kazarian 
opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the 
context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," 
and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 201 0). As the Petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the Petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the Petitioner has not documented the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.3 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of H-S-, ID# 13009 (AAO Sept. 11, 20 15) 
3 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(l), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March I, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
11