dismissed EB-1A Case: Business Training And Development

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 3 0 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigra tion Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massa chusetts Ave .• N.W ., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
PETITION: Immigr ant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incon·ectly decided your case , you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03 .5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www .uscis .gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location , and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
;lJ"V~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of business training 
and development (T &D), pursuant to section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), which makes visas available to petitioners who can demonstrate 
their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. Section 
203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act limits this classification to petitioners with extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, arts, education , business, or athletics. 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. 
On appeal, the petitiOner asserts that he meets the criteria under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), (vi) and (viii). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the director 
that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who is at the very top in the field of endeavor , 
and that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) , (3). 
Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner 's appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. Id.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate his sustained acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the. field through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 
petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that 
meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 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. 20 I 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 USCIS' 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 USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality" and that users 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 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner, as initial evidence, may present 
evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, 
the petitioner has not asserted or shown through his evidence that he is the recipient of a major, 
internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, as initial 
evidence, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§ION 
Page4 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner has 
not specifically challenged the director's conclusion as relating to the prizes and awards criterion. 
As such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. 
United States Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court 
found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted documentation of his receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner has 
not specifically challenged the director's conclusion as relating to the membership in associations 
criterion. As such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. 
Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted documentation of his membership in associations in 
the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
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 class(fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner has 
not specifically challenged the director's conclusion as relating to the published material criterion. 
As such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 
401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of published material about him in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to his work in the field for 
which classification is sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
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 alliedfield of specification for which class?fzcation is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record supports this 
conclusion. Specifically, according to a June 2, 2014 letter from 
, from 2012 to 2014, the petitioner advised nine MBA candidates on their final 
theses. According to an undated letter from President of 
, as a professional member of the petitioner has 
"judged the work of others in order to understand the applicability of each proposal." Accordingly, 
the petitioner has submitted evidence of his participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor sign?fzcance in thefzeld. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion. Specifically, the petitioner asserts that 
his statement; letters from President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the 
; and reference letters establish that he meets this criterion. To meet this 
criterion, the petitioner must demonstrate that his contributions are both original and of major 
significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The term "original" and the phrase "major 
significance" are not superfluous and, thus, they have some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple 
Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 
(2d Cir. 2003)). The petitioner must show that his contributions are original, such that he is the first 
person or one of the first people to have done the research or developed the methodology in the field, 
and that his contributions are of major significance in the field, such that his research or 
methodology fundamentally changed or significantly advance the field as a whole. In addition, 
contributions of major significance connotes that his work has already significantly impacted the 
field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-36. 
In this case, the record does not support a finding that the petitioner has made original contributions 
of major significance in the field. First, the petitioner's statement is insufficient to show that he 
meets this criterion. To establish that he meets this criterion, the petitioner's statements must be 
supported by evidence in the record. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCal?fornia, 
14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). As discussed below, the evidence in the record does not 
support the petitioner's assertions made in his statement or on appeal. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDEhTDEC~JON 
Page 6 
Second, Mr. _ letters do not demonstrate that the petitioner has made contributions of 
major significance in the field. The petitioner has submitted two letters from Mr. _ Both 
letters are dated September 15, 2014. In one of the letters, Mr. recognizes the petitioner's 
"accomplishments and contributions to [the] global community of talent development professionals" 
and states that the petitioner received a 2012 Certificate of Appreciation at International 
Conference and Exposition "because of [his] significant contributions to [the] industry." The letter 
provides that the petitioner's contributions in the field include presenting at conferences, leading 
conference workshops, participating in research projects, serving on panels, and assisting in building 
a training and development certification system. In the other letter, Mr. indicates that the 
petitioner has presented at conferences, authored materials for publications and 
chaired its Program Advisory Council. Neither Mr. _ letters nor other evidence in the 
record indicate that these activities are original, such that the petitioner is the first or one of the first 
persons to have developyd the strategies on which he lectures and writes. In addition, neither Mr. 
letters nor other evidence in the record indicate that these activities are contributions of 
major significance in the field, such that they fundamentally changed or significantly advanced the 
field of business training and development as a whole. Mr. _ letters discuss the petitioner's 
involvement with and contributions to and, previously, They do not, however, 
establish the peti~ioner' s contributions in the field of business training and development as a whole, 
which encompasses an unspecific number of professional associations, organizations and 
establishments. 
Third, reference letters that contain conclusory statements of the petitioner's contributions, and that 
lack specific examples of the petitioner's work that are original and of major significance in the 
field, do not demonstrate the petitioner has met this criterion. For example, according to an August 
2013 letter from President of Colombia, the 
petitioner has coached "investors and intrapreneurs [sic] using a well[-]known international 
methodology delivered by . " Mr. does not assert that the petitioner participated in the 
development of this methodology such that it constitutes his original contribution. Mr. further 
asserts: "With relevant contributions [in the] field, he is an original contributor as a wTiter and 
consultant, who brought new concepts to Colombia, Puerto Rico, Mexico and Brazil (countries 
where [Mr. has] witness[ed] his work)." The letter discusses the petitioner's work in general 
terms, and does not provide specific examples of the "new concepts" that the petitioner introduced, 
credit the petitioner with developing these "new concepts," or explain how these "new concepts" 
constitute contributions of major significance in the field as a whole. 
According to an August 15, 2013 letter from of the 
petitioner is "an authority [i]n the fields of training and development of human resources," "a 
reference and example to be followed," "the perfect ambassador of always available to 
explain to all his audience what is and the benefits to professionals worldwide." The letter 
does not provide sufficient evidence in support of these conclusory statements. Mr. does not 
explained why the petitioner is considered an "authority" or "reference" in the field, or if the 
petitioner has made any original contributions of major significance in the field as a whole. An 
August 15, 2013 letter from , Managing Director of , states that 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
the petitioner has made "direct contribution to the T &D industry ... in many countries, where he has 
been working." The letter, which consists of three sentences, does not provide specific examples of 
a "direct contribution" or evidence demonstrating the impact of the petitioner's work in the field. 
An undated letter from Mr. of , stating that the petitioner has made "contributions on 
the most relevant trends to [the] field" and "contributions that modernized [the] field." Mr. 
however, does not provide specific information or examples of the petitioner's contributions or 
evidence showing that the impact of the contributions is at a level consistent with "major 
significance in the field." Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165. Similarly, repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy 
the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 
10729,1997 WL 188942 at *1, 5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertions. See 1756 .. Inc. v. United States Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.C. Dist. 
1990). 
Fourth, authorship and conference participation, without a showing that the petitioner's work has 
impacted in the field, do not establish that the petitioner has met this criterion. The regulations 
contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), 
which we discuss below. As such, the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary 
requirement from scholarly articles. Publication and presentations, which are evidence of the 
dissemination of the petitioner's work, are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
absent evidence that they are of "major significance" in the field. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 
1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In Kazarian, the court 
reaffirmed its holding that our adverse finding under this criterion was not an abuse of discretion. 
596 F.3d at 1122. Typically, in considering whether a published article or presentation is a 
contribution of major significance, we look at the impact of the material or presentation after 
dissemination. The petitioner has also not demonstrated the impact of his books or even their sales 
data. 
The record lacks sufficient evidence showing that the impact of the petitioner's work is at a level 
consistent with contributions of major significance in the field. An August 16, 2013 letter listing the 
author as Marketing and Sales Director one 
of the petitioner's clients. The letter, however, bears no signature and, as such, has no evidentiary 
value. Regardless, the letter states that the petitioner's coaching program "completely met all 
expectations and goals." Letters from clients, who are generally satisfied with the petitioner's 
program, are insufficient to demonstrate impact of the petitioner's work in the field. The petitioner 
has not submitted evidence showing that there has been a wide adoption or implementation of his 
work in the field, that others in the field have relied on his work for their own work or research, or 
that his work fundamentally changed or significantly advanced the field of business training and 
development as a whole. Without evidence of an impact at a level of major significance in the field, 
the petitioner's written work and presentations are insufficient to meet this criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Vague, solicited letters from colleagues and clients that do not specifically identify contributions or 
provide specific examples ofhow those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. 2 Kazarian 
v. USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have 
been considered above. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted 
as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 
users is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also 
Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not 
purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. !d. at 795; see also 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
Cal(fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)); See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 
(upholding our decision to give minimal weight to vague, solicited letters from colleagues or 
associates that do not provide details on contributions of major significance in the field). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of his original scientific , scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) . 
Evidence of the alien's authorship o.f scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion. The evidence in the record supports this 
assertion. S ecifically, the petitioner has authored a chapter entitled '' 
' in the -' 
The petitioner has also authored an article entitled 
" published in Accordingly , the petitioner has 
submitted evidence of his authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. The petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . 
2 
In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to 
[the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory 
language." 596 F.3d at 1122 . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because of his involvement with 
and other unspecified organizations and establishments. To demonstrate that he 
performs a leading role, the petitioner should present evidence establishing not only on his title but 
his duties associated with the position. To demonstrate that he performs a critical role, the petitioner 
should present evidence establishing his impact on the organization or establishment as a whole. To 
show his role in an organization or establishment, the petitioner may submit an organization chart 
demonstrating how his role fits within the hierarchy of the organization or establishment. In 
addition, the petitioner must show that the organizations and establishments , in which he performs a 
leading or critical role, have a distinguished reputation. The evidence in the record does not 
establish that the petitioner has met this criterion. 
First, the petitioner has not shown that he meets this criterion based on his involvement with 
known as as of 2014. The petitioner has submitted a March 23, 2004 letter from 
Conference Program Manager, in which Ms. thanks the petitioner for "the 
outstanding effort, time, and creativity [he] invested in the International Forum and for the 
International Conference & Exposition." The letter further states that the petitioner "helped 
to make these forums 
a success for the international audience and for " The letter does not 
state or provide any specific evidence showing that the petitioner performed either a leading or a 
critical role for the forums, or . Rather, this is a letter of appreciation that thanks the 
petitioner in general terms for his involvement with the forums and ~ 
Ms. as Senior Manager of International Programs, has submitted a second letter in 
support of the petitioner. Her second letter is dated May 21, 2013. The petitioner has also submitted 
a May 21, 2012 letter from Mr. which contains verbatim language from Ms. May 
21, 2013 letter. Specifically, five of the six paragraphs are exactly the same in the two letters. The 
verbatim language in both letters, which discuss the petitioner's involvement with and role in 
suggests that the language in the letters is not the authors ' own, at least with respect to the later 2013 
letter. Cf Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006) 
(upholding an immigration judge's adverse credibility determination in asylum proceedings based in 
part on the similarity of some of the affidavits); Mei Chai Ye v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 489 
F.3d 517,519 (2d Cir. 2007) (concluding that an immigration judge may reasonably infer that when 
an asylum applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits, there is a common 
source). 
Regardless, the petitioner has not shown through these letters that he meets this criterion. According 
to these two letters, the petitioner "has held a very unique leadership position as Chairman of the 
Advisory Committee for the International Conference and Exposition , at ... where 
he was the first non-North American Chairman in more than 60 years of [the] association history." 
The letters provide that has asked the petitioner to present at conferences and write for 
publications, including the The petitioner has not shown that his role as a 
committee chairman for an conference constitutes a leading or critical role for as 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
whole. Neither Ms. nor Mr. has provided details or specific information relating to 
the petitioner's role as the chairman of a committee. The petitioner's title as a committee chairman, 
without specific information relating to what he did or his impact on in that role, is 
insufficient to demonstrate that he has performed either a leading or critical role for or 
as a whole. Even if we consider the petitioner's role for the committee, the petitioner would then 
need to demonstrate that the committee, individually and on its own, enjoys a distinguished 
reputation. 
In addition, evidence that the petitioner has presented at conferences and has written for 
publications is insufficient to show that the petitioner has met this criterion. The petitioner 
has not submitted evidence showing that his role as one of an unspecific number of presenters at 
conferences and one of an unspecific number of writers for publications are indicative 
of either his leading or critical role in as a whole. For example, according to materials from 
the event, during day 2 of the event, there were 16 speakers, including the 
petitioner, scheduled for concurrent sessions and three speakers scheduled for mega sessions. 
According to materials from the International Conference and Exposition, the 
conference had more than 300 sessions and speakers from 27 countries. According 
to materials from 
~ . ~re 
were multiple speakers scheduled for a number of concurrent sessions at the conference. The 
petitioner has not submitted evidence showing how a presenter or writer fits into the hierarchy of 
or . . which is relevant to whether he has performed a leading role in the organization; or 
evidence showing the impact he has had in or as a presenter or writer, which is relevant 
to whether he has performed a critical role in the organization. 
The record does contain a credit page for which lists the petitioner as the technical 
coordinator. The petitioner has not documented his duties in this role. Moreover, assuming this role 
is a leading or critical one, the petitioner would need to demonstrate that the magazine, individually 
and on its own, enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
Moreover, the petitioner has not shown that had or has a distinguished reputation. The 
petitioner has submitted material from website entitled ' ' which states that 
"is the world's premier professional association and leading resource on workplace learning 
and performance issues." The information contained in this online printout constitutes self­
promotional evidence and thus has minimal evidentiary value. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-
5105 SJO 10, 2007 WL 9229758, at *1, 6-7 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007), aff'd, 317 F. App'x 680 (9th 
Cir. 2009) (concluding that we did not have to rely on the promotional assertions on the cover of a 
magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). The petitioner has not supported the self­
promotional evidence with more independent evidence. Although the petitioner has submitted an 
undated online printout from that discuses . changing its name to the 
material does not state or establish that had or has a distinguished reputation. The 
petitioner has also not submitted evidence showing that accuracy and/or reliability of contents posted 
on clomedia.com. The record includes published materials by in the 
, the Events Watch section, and the , the Sharing Session section, about 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
events. The petitioner has not presented evidence relating to the accuracy or reliability of 
these publications. In addition, the record lacks information about the author or evidence showing 
that the materials are news reporting materials, rather than promotional materials, such as a 
press release. In short, the petitioner has not shown that that he has performed a leading or critical 
role for or as a whole, or that or has a distinguished reputation. The 
record also lacks evidence specific to the committee the petitioner chaired or the magazine 
published such that he has established that his role for those entities is qualifying under this 
criterion. 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that he meets this criterion based on his involvement with 
The petitioner has submitted an undated letter from President, Mr. stating 
that the petitioner has had a number of roles within and that has recognized his work. 
The letter does not indicate how the petitioner's various roles fit within hierarchy, which 
might show that he has performed a leading role. Similarly, the letter does not indicate how the 
petitioner's work has impacted the organization as a whole, which might show that he has performed 
a critical role. The petitioner submitted a document showing that he was a speaker at a 
Regional Workshop organized by and The petitioner has not shown that being a 
speaker at a workshop is indicative of his leading or critical role for the organization. Both 
(now ) and organize a number of events where individuals are invited to participate as 
speakers. The petitioner has not shown, with an organizational chart or otherwise, where his role as 
a workshop speaker fits within the hierarchy of either organization, or the impact his role as a 
workshop speaker has had in either organization. In addition, the petitioner has not shown that 
has a distinguished reputation. According to online material from website, 
mission "is to support companies and training and development professionals to perform their job 
with excellence." The petitioner has not shown that a mission statement is sufficient to establish that 
has a distinguished reputation. The record lacks evidence from an independent source, such 
as published materials from nationally or internationally circulated publications, demonstrating 
has a distinguished reputation. 
Third, on appeal, the petitioner has asserted that his role in six organizations meets this criterion, but 
identifies only and The petitioner's statement that his involvement in unnamed 
organizations meets this criterion, without providing any legal support, does not require us to 
conduct a full analysis as relating to these organizations. See Desravines v. United States Att 'y Gen., 
No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433,435 (11th Cir. 2009) (finding that issues not briefed on appeal by a 
pro se litigant are deemed abandoned); Tedder v. FMC. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) 
(deeming abandoned an issue raised in the statement of issues but not anywhere else in the brief). 
As such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not properly raise it on appeal. 
In the alternative, the record includes evidence relating to other organizations and establishments, 
including 
-
The record, however, lacks sufficient evidence showing what role the petitiOner has 
performed for these organizations, whether his role in these organizations is leading or critical, or if 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
these organizations have a distinguished reputation. While the petitiOner is the founder and 
president of his own company, the petitioner has not documented the reputation of that company 
from sources independent of the company's website and the company's clients. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence that he has performed in a leading or critical 
role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
B. Summary 
The evidence shows that the petitioner has been active in the field of business training and 
development. He owns a business that provides training, he has authored business training and 
development related materials, presented at conferences, and has been involved in a number of 
professional organizations. Notwithstanding the above activities, for the reasons discussed above, 
we agree with the director that the petitioner has not submitted the requisite initial evidence that 
satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who have 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.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 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 on which the petitioner relies 
on appeal in the aggregate supports a finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated, through the 
submission of extensive evidence, the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 3 
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)(1), 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
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, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
legacy INS, now USC IS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).