dismissed EB-1A Case: Climatology And Water Resources Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 14 Z013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of$630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen.· 
Thank you, 
• 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on December 19, 2012, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b )(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in climatology and water resources engineering. The director 
determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to 
submit extensive documentation of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" ofhis or her achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, 
specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
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 
(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. !d.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 1 With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 1121-
22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." !d. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner 
has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a pan el, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an 
allied field of specification for which classification is sought." Based upon a review of the record of 
proceeding, the petitioner · submitted sufficient documentation establishing that he minimally meets 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Therefore , the AAO concurs with 
the findings of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly , the petitioner established that he meets this criterion . 
· Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language ofthe regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance 
in the field." Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original 
scientific or scholarly-related contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase "major 
significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple 
Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 
(2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003) . 
On appeal, counsel claims: 
[The petitioner] has offered evidence of his impressive citation record. At the time 
he filed his original petition , [the petitioner] had been cited 195 times over the 
course of his career (2005-2011). At the time [the petitioner] responded to a USCIS 
Request for Evidence issued on August 8, 2012, [the petitioner's] citation record had 
increased to 377 citations. As of January 10, 2013, [the petitioner's] citation 
record has continued to rise and is now at a total of 423 citations . . . . In the 
Denial, the USCIS officer dismissed evidence of this increase in the number of 
citations to [the petitioner's] published works, stating, "USCIS will not consider this 
evidence as a petitioner must establish eligibility for the requested benefit at the time 
of filing the I-140 petition." In doing so, the USCIS officer was mistaken. The 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
AAO has considered evidence of an accelerating rate of citations after the original 
filing date. 
* * * 
[E]ven if [the petitioner's] accelerating citation record is not considered, [the 
petitioner's] citation record at the time he filed his I-140 petition also clearly 
demonstrates that his original works are of major significance to his field of 
endeavor. At the time of the original filing, [the petitioner] has been cited a total of 
195 times over the course of his career (from 2005 to 2011). At this level of 
citations, [the petitioner] satisfies this criterion. 
(Emphasis in original.) 
In addition, counsel submitted several unpublished AAO decisions. While the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in 
the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. The AAO is not 
required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely 
because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church Scientology 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). USCIS need not treat acknowledged errors 
as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. 
denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). Moreover, the specific facts of the case, which include, for instance, 
the specific nature of the citations and the submission of supporting documentation, are not in the 
record. Without the records, it cannot be determined whether the facts of any other case are similar 
to those of the present case. 
Furthermore, in regards to the submission of additional citations in response to the request for 
additional evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8) and on appeal, eligibility 
must be established at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). Whether 
referencing an immigrant or a nonimmigrant classification, case law requires that an alien applying 
for a benefit, or a petitioner seeking an immigration status for a beneficiary, must demonstrate 
eligibility for the benefit or the status at the time the petition is filed. See Matter of Pazandeh, 19 
I&N Dec. 884, 886 (BIA 1989) (citing Matter of Atembe, 19 I&N Dec. 427, 429 (BIA 1986); 
Matter of Drigo, 18 I&N Dec. 223, 224-225 (BIA 1982); Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114, 
116 (BIA 1981 )). A petition may not be approved if the beneficiary or the self-petitioner was not 
qualified at the priority date. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971); 
see also Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978) regarding 
nonimmigrant petitions. The Regional Commissioner in Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 
158, 160 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977) emphasizes the importance of not obtaining a priority date prior to 
being eligible, based on future experience. This follows the policy of preventing affected parties 
from securing a priority date in the hope that they will subsequently be able to demonstrate 
eligibility. In fact, this principle has been extended beyond an alien's eligibility for the 
classification sought. For example, an employer must establish its ability to pay the proffered wage 
as of the date of filing a petition. See Matter of Great Wall, 16 I&N Dec. 142, 144-145 (Act. Reg'l 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
Comm'r 1977), which provides that a petition should not become approvable under a new set of 
facts. Ultimately, in order to be meritorious in fact, a petition must meet the statutory and 
regulatory requirements for approval as of the date it was filed. Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 
257, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). Here, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence in response 
to the director's request for additional evidence or on appeal that demonstrates that any of the 
additional citations occurred prior to the filing of the petition. 
Moreover, while the number of total citations is a factor, it is not the only factor to be considered in 
determining the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. Generally, the number of citations is 
reflective of the petitioner's original findings and that the field has taken some interest to the 
petitioner's work. However, it is not an automatic indicator that the petitioner's work has been of 
major significance in the field. The cumulative number of citations of the petitioner's work does 
not necessary demonstrate that the petitioner has made original contributions of major significance 
in the field. For example, an alien who authors a high volume of articles but has few citations to 
each ofhis articles may cumulatively have a high number of citations but that is not reflective of the 
articles having been of major significance in the field. In contrast, the individual citations for each 
of the petitioner's published materials, as well as the submission of supporting documentation, is a 
better indicator to establish the impact or influence of the petitioner's work on the field, so as to 
demonstrate original contributions of major significance in the field. Rather than focusing on the 
total number of citations for all of the petitioner's work, the AAO will review the number of 
citations for each of the petitioner's authored materials. 
At the initial filing of the petition, the petitioner submitted screenshots from and 
indicating that the petitioner's work has been cited approximately 195 times. A review of 
the petitioner's published material submitted by the petitioner reflects that the petitioner cited 
himself approximately 64 times. While the petitioner's self-citations demonstrates the impact of his 
work on his own later work, the remaining 132 independent citations by others is not evidence that 
the field has widely applied his work, so as to show that his original work has been of major 
significance in the field. 
In addition, according to the documentation submitted by the petitioner at the initial filing of the 
petition, the petitioner's two highest cited articles were: ' 
" ( 41 citations) that includes five self-citations, and " 
'' (34 citations) that includes four self-citations. It is noted that 
the petitioner's remaining articles were cited 18 or less times that also includes self-citations. The 
AAO is not persuaded that such citations are reflective that the petitioner's work has been of major 
significance in the field. The petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating 
that his articles have been unusually influential, such as articles that discuss in-depth the petitioner's 
findings or credit the petitioner with influencing or impacting the field. Instead, at the initial filing 
of the petition, the petitioner submitted several e-mails that generated favorable comments on the 
petitioner's articles, requested copies of the petitioner's work, or requested answers to additional 
questions. The evidence falls substantially short of establishing that the petitioner's original 
contributions have been of major significance in the field. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
The petitioner's documentary evidence is not reflective of his work having been of major 
significance in the field. Merely submitting documentation reflecting that the petitioner's work has 
been cited by others in their published material is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion 
without documentary evidence reflecting that the petitioner's work has been of major significance in 
the field. The AAO is not persuaded that the moderate citations of the petitioner's individual 
articles are reflective of the significance of his work in the field. The petitioner failed to establish 
how his work has significantly contributed to his field as a whole. 
Similarly, at the initial filing of the petition, the petitioner submitted documentary evidence 
regarding the downloaded history of his published material, including evidence reflecting that two 
of his articles, '' ' and " ," were 
ranked in the "Top 25 Hottest Articles." However, downloads merely demonstrate an interest in the 
research but do not demonstrate that the reader ultimately found the research useful or even relevant 
as citations would demonstrate. According to the petitioner's documentary evidence submitted at 
the initial filing of the petition, the petitioner's first article above was cited one time and that was 
only in the petitioner's own work. Moreover, the second article was cited 15 times but five of those 
were self-citations. Again, the minimal citations of the petitioner's articles are not reflective that the 
petitioner's original contributions have risen to a level of major significance. 
Likewise, the petitioner's evidence includes documentation that he has presented his findings at 
various scientific conferences, such as the 
along with numerous other participants. Many professional fields regularly hold 
conferences and symposia to present new work, discuss new findings, and to network with other 
professionals. These conferences are promoted and sponsored by professional associations, 
businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. Participation in such events, 
however, does not equate to an original contribution of major significance in the field. There is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner's conference presentations have been frequently cited by 
independent researchers or have otherwise significantly impacted the field. 
Again, while the presentation of the petitioner's work demonstrates that the petitioner's work was 
shared with others and may be acknowledged as original contributions based on the selection of 
them to be presented, the AAO is not persuaded that presentations of the petitioner's work is 
sufficient evidence establishing that the petitioner's work is of major significance to the field as a 
whole and not limited to the engagements in which they were presented. The petitioner failed to 
establish, for example, that the presentations were of major significance, so as to establish their 
impact or influence beyond the audience at the conferences. 
The petitioner submitted several recommendation letters. While the recommendation letters 
establish the petitioner's original contributions, they do not demonstrate that those contributions 
have been of major significance in the field. The letters briefly describe the petitioner's original 
research and findings but make general statements that the petitioner's research has been of major 
significance without providing any detailed explanation as to how the petitioner's work has been of 
major significance in the field. For instance, stated that the petitioner "is the 
first researcher to look at the effect of seasonality of climate variability on hydrometric network 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
design" and "[t]his finding is very important for designing of hydro-climatic networks as well as 
water resources planning purposes." Although identified an original contribution, he 
failed to indicate any hydrometric networks that have been designed as a result of the petitioner's 
research, so as to demonstrate the significance of the petitioner's work on the field. Similarly, 
stated that the petitioner's "research contributions are already enormously felt in 
various sectors." failed to elaborate how the petitioner's research contributions 
have been "enormously felt," so as to establish that the petitioner's contributions have been of major 
significance in the field. stated that "the work being done by [the petitioner] has a 
substantial value to various U.S. government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. 
Environment Protection Agency, and other similar federal organizations." failed to 
specify how any of the Governmental agencies have applied the petitioner's work, and failed to 
provide any details as to the impact of the petitioner's research so as to demonstrate that it has been 
of major significance in the field. 
When discussing the significance of the petitioner's research, the recommendation letters indicate 
that the petitioner's research has been published in various scientific and professional journals. For 
instance, stated that the petitioner's "publications with 
their very high quality and 
being significant contributions to the engineering practice concerning the management of water." 
The publishing of the petitioner's work demonstrates the originality of it, but it does not establish 
that it has been of major significance in the field. Simply authoring articles is insufficient to meet 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) without evidence showing that the 
original contributions have been of major significance. Moreover, the regulations contain a separate 
criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO will 
not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly articles criterion is presumptive 
evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold otherwise would render meaningless 
the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
As indicated above, the recommendation letters reflect that the petitioner has made original 
contributions based on his research. However, the letters fail to indicate that his contributions are of 
major significance in the field. Moreover, a petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification 
based on the expectation of future eligibility. For instance, stated that the 
petitioner's "novel approaches to the issue of drought in various areas of the United States are a 
potentially integral part of the country's future." Also, stated that "I am very convinced 
that [the petitioner] [will] have [an] influential impact on the field of water resources." Given the 
descriptions in terms of future applicability and determinations that may occur at a later date, it 
appears that the petitioner's research, while original, is still ongoing and that the findings he has 
made are not currently being implemented or widely applied in his field. Accordingly, while it is 
not disputed that the petitioner's research and findings are original, as well as the fact that the field 
has taken some notice of his work, the actual present impact of the petitioner's work has not been 
established. Rather, the petitioner's references appear to speculate 'about how the petitioner's 
findings may affect the field at some point in the future. Eligibility must be established at the time 
of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further provides, 
citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114, that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into 
being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." !d. at 176. A petitioner cannot file a petition 
under this classification based on the expectation of future eligibility. The assertion that the 
petitioner's research results are likely to be influential is not adequate to establish that his findings 
are already recognized as major contributions in the field. 
The recommendation letters also discuss the petitioner's skills, education, and talents. For example, 
indicated the petitioner's "rare talent and well-rounded knowledge." 
Further, stated that "the unique skills possessed by [the petitioner] for drought 
forecasting will be needed now and in the future." However, none of the letters indicated how the 
petitioner's skills or personal traits are original contributions of major significance to the field. 
Merely having a diverse skill set is not a contribution of major significance. Rather, the record must 
be supported by evidence that the petitioner has already used those unique skills to make original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Furthermore, assuming the petitioner's skills are 
unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. 
In fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien 
employment labor certification process. See Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N 
Dec. 215,221 (Comm'r 1998). 
While some familiar with the petitioner's work describe it as "extraordinary," there is insufficient 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work is of major significance. This 
regulatory criterion not only requires the petitioner to make original contributions, the regulatory 
criterion also requires those contributions to be of major significance. The AAO is not persuaded by 
vague, solicited letters that simply repeat the statutory or regulatory language but do not explain 
how the petitioner's contributions have already influenced the field. Vague, solicited letters from 
colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific examples of how those 
contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th 
Cir. 2009) a.ffd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that 
the AAO's conclusion that the "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. Moreover, the letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of the 
petitioner's status in the field without providing specific examples of how those contributions have 
been of major significance in the field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations 
does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 
1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), a.ffd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Aryr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 
WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). The lack of supporting evidence gives the AAO no basis to gauge the 
significance ofthe petitioner's present contributions. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. See 
Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). USCIS is, however, 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts is 
. not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
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). 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 an immigration petition are ofless weight than preexisting, 
independent evidence of original contributions of major significance. 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the 
alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field [emphasis added]." Without additional, specific evidence showing that the 
petitioner's work has been unusually influential, widely applied throughout his field, or has 
otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, the petitioner failed to meet the 
plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets 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 ofthe regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence ofthe alien's 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media." Based upon a review of the record of proceeding, the petitioner submitted sufficient 
documentation establishing that he meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(vi). Therefore, the AAO concurs with the findings of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary 
categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a fi11al 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[ir] 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. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need 
not explain that conclusion in a final merits determination.3 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 P.3d 143, 
145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a fmal merits 
determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). See also 
section 103(a)(l) of the Act; section 204(b) ofthe Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 
2003); 8 C.P.R.§ 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.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).