dismissed EB-1A Case: Economics

.. 
. identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly Jnwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: JUL 11 2(WIFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Scrvicc~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20S29~2090 
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 § lI53(b)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 CF.R § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 CF.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
.)) iJfj)jj ntl 
rPerry Rhew 
l Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.go,,-
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Acting Director 
(the director), Texas Service Center, on March 24, 2011, 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 as an economics professor. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive 
documentation of his 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" of his or her achievements. See section 203 (b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(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, the petitioner states: 
I understand that the final decision was made on March 24, 2010, just two (2) 
weeks after the submission of evidence requested in the NOID was received on 
March 10, 2011, but the final decision did not mention neither analyze written 
material and other evidence provided. Therefore, the evidence I provided could 
either be ignored or misunderstood. Additionally to this reason, I would like 
orally to express other major concerns and information related to my case before 
the [AAO] while I do believe I will submit evidence and my brief in 30 days, 
showing that I meet at least three of ten criteria outlined in the USCIS Regulation. 
It is noted that the petitioner submitted a brief within 30 days of his appeal, and it is contained in 
the record of proceeding. The regulations provide that the requesting party must explain in 
writing why oral argument is necessary. Further, USCIS has the sole authority to grant or deny a 
request for oral argument and will grant argument only in cases involving unique factors or 
issues of law that cannot be adequately addressed in writing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b). In this 
instance, the petitioner identified no unique factors or issues of law to be resolved. Moreover, 
the written record of proceedings fully represents the facts and issues in this matter. 
Consequently, the request for oral argument is denied. 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that at the time of the original filing of the petition, 
although the petitioner filed an alien of extraordinary ability petition pursuant to section 
203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act, the petitioner's prior counsel submitted a cover letter and documentary 
evidence arguing the petitioner's eligibility as an alien who is a member of the professions 
Page 3 
holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(A) of 
the Act. I As such, the director issued a notice of intent to deny the petition pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8) providing the petitioner the opportunity to establish 
eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability, including evidence that the petitioner is coming to 
the United States to continue to work in his area of extraordinary ability pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). In response, the petitioner submitted a letter 
detailing his plans on how he intended to continue to work in the United States, as well as 
documentary evidence reflecting teaching contracts and course schedules. In the director's 
decision, she did not address the documentary evidence or indicate if the petitioner overcame the 
grounds for the notice of intent to deny for this issue. Based on a review of the documentary 
evidence, the petitioner submitted sufficient documentation demonstrating that he intends to 
continue to work in his field of expertise. 
It is further noted that the petitioner indicated in his appellate brief that the director erroneously 
mailed the decision to South Carolina instead of North Carolina. A review of the record of 
proceeding reflects that at the time of the filing of the petition, the petitioner indicated on Form 1-
140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, that he resided in South Carolina. However, in 
response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner indicated that his state of 
residence was North Carolina. For the record, as indicated in the AAO's cover letter for this 
decision, the petitioner's state of residence is North Carolina. 
Furthermore, the petitioner also indicated in his appellate brief that at the time he filed his 
petition, he was assigned a different alien registration number (A#) and a different receipt 
number for his petition than was indicated in the director's decision. A review of the record of 
proceeding reflects that the director's decision referenced an incorrect A# and receipt number. 
For the record, the A# and receipt number reflected on this decision are the petitioner's correct 
A# and receipt number. Beyond the appeal process itself, it is not clear what remedy the 
petitioner seeks. The petitioner has, in fact, supplemented the record on appeal and made 
further arguments regarding his eligibility. Regardless, the AAO will review the record in its 
entirety based on the petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his eligibility. See Spencer 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 
683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DO], 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the 
AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
I The record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner's prior counsel In response to the 
director's notice of intent to deny the petition, the petitioner indicated that _ was no longer his counsel 
and all correspondence should be forwarded to the petitioner. 
-Page 4 
(I) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if --
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, 
arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to 
continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (US CIS) 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 10I
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. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate his or her 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, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the 
following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) 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 classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
-Page 5 
(iv) 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 allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles In the field, In 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
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. USc/S, 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.2 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. 
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)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[irj field of endeavor," 
2 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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 6 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). and "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)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
Id.atl119. 
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 reviewing a Service Center decision 
where the two-step analysis was applied. the AAO will conduct a de novo review to determine if the 
decision complied with the analysis set forth in Kazarian. See Spencer Enterprises. Inc. v. United 
States. 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. affd. 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DO}. 381 F.3d at 145. 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on June 22, 2010, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as an economics professor. The petitioner has submitted evidence 
pertaining to the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 3 
Documentation of the alien' s memhership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought. which require outstanding achievements of their 
memhers. as judged hy recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines orfields. 
The district director found that the petitioner failed to meet the plain language of the regulation 
for this criterion. In the petitioner's brief, the petitioner did not contest the decision of the 
director or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned 
and will not further discuss this criterion on appeal. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 
1226, 1228 n. 2 (lith Cir. 2005). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Puhlished 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 
classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessary translation. 
J The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
--Page 7 
The district director found that the petitioner failed to meet this criterion. On appeal, the 
petitioner argues that the following documentation demonstrates his eligibility for this 
criterion: 
1. 
2. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "lp]ublished 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 classification is sought." In general, in order for published 
material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in the 
regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.4 
Regarding item 1, the screenshot is about finding jobs in the recession in the Maryland area. 
Although the article contains a picture of the petitioner with a caption reflecting the petitioner 
lecturing at [MSU], along with some of his quotations, the screenshot is not about the petitioner 
relating to his work. In fact, the screenshot contains quotations from other individuals as well. 
failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing that 
is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. The AAO 
IS not articles posted on the Internet from a printed publication are automatically 
considered major media. In today's world, many newspapers and media outlets, regardless of 
size and distribution, post at least some of their stories on the Internet. To ignore this reality 
would be to render the "major media" requirement meaningless. However, the AAO is not 
persuaded that international accessibility by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given 
website is "major media." 
Regarding item 2, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that 
the published material be "about" the petitioner relating to his work in the field for which 
classification is sought. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers or 
professors pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act, which only requires published material about 
the alien's work. Articles authored by the petitioner are not articles about the petitioner relating to 
his work. Notwithstanding, the article was published in May 2011. The petitioner filed his petition 
4 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County. 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 8 
on June 22, 2010. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 c.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg!. Comm'r, 1971). A petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of 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. 114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into 
being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. 
The AAO notes that in response to the director's notice of intent to deny, the petitioner also 
claimed eligibility for this criterion based on a textbook cover from 
of who "printed [the petitioner's] full name 
the Instructor textbook in recognition of [his] relevant lectures in classrooms," 
textbook cover fails to provide any evidence of published material about the petitioner relating to 
his work, Instead, the textbook cover merely reflects a complimentary copy o~ ••• IIIi. 
textbook to the petitioner, Clearly, the textbook cover does not meet the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Moreover, even if the petitioner were to submit supporting documentary evidence showing that 
item 1 meets the elements of this criterion, which he has not, section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act 
requires the submission of extensive evidence. Consistent with that statutory requirement, the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires material about the petitioner in 
more than one major publication. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are 
worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only 
require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes 
to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "Ietter(s)." Thus, the AAO 
can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, 
federal courts have upheld users' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or 
plural is used in a regulation5 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner failed to establish that he has published material 
about him relating to his work in professional or major trade publications or other major media 
consistent with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge o{ 
the work of others in the same or an allied .field (!f' .Ipecification jor which 
classification is sought. 
5 See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapname.l'.com Inc. \'. 
Chertoff: 2006 WL 3491005 at * I 0 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory 
requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single 
degree rather than a cumbination of academic credentials), 
Page 9 
The director determined that the petitioner's documentary evidence failed to establish eligibility 
for this criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires 
"[eJvidence 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." Pursuant to 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22, the petitioner submitted sufficient documentation establishing that 
he meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Therefore, the AAO 
withdraws the findings of the acting director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets the plain language of the regulation for this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in thefield. 
While the petitioner did not claim eligibility for this criterion at the time of the initial filing of the 
petition or in response to the director's notice of intent to deny the petition, the director 
concluded that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, the 
petitioner argues that he is eligible for this criterion based on two PowerPoint presentations, the 
previously mentioned textbook cover from and several recommendation letters. 
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." In compliance with Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain 
language of the regulatory criteria. 596 F.3d at 1121. Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see 
whether it rises to the level of original business or scholarly-related contributions "of major 
significance in the field." 
Regarding the 
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 necessarily equate to an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. In this instance, there is no evidence such as that 
the petitioner's conference or PowerPoint presentations have been frequently cited by 
independent researchers or have otherwise significantly impacted the field, so as to establish that 
they have been of major significance in the field. Again, while the petitioner made presentations 
and shared his work with others, the AAO is not persuaded that simply submitting evidence of his 
Page IO 
presentations at three venues is sufficient evidence establishing that the petitioner's work is of major 
significance to the field as a whole rather than limited to the three engagements in which they were 
presented. The petitioner failed to establish, for example, that the presentations have significantly 
influenced the field, so as to establish their impact or influence beyond the audience at the 
conferences. Merely submitting documentary evidence that the petitioner made presentations 
without submitting any documentary evidence demonstrating that the field has widely used the 
petitioner's presentations is insufficient to reflect that they have been of major significance. 
The record of proceeding also reflects that the petitioner submitted a letter from_ 
••• I11!111 •••••••••••••• requesting that the petitioner attend a_ 
from July 31 - August 5, 2011, and encouraged the petitioner to make a presentation and to 
provide a paper on a relevant aspect of the topic. Eligibility must be established at the time of 
filing. 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 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 facts. Matter 
(!f lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. 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." Id. at 176. Notwithstanding that the petitioner failed to establish that he 
attended the symposium and presented a paper. the petitioner failed to submit any documentary 
evidence demonstrating that it resulted in an original contribution of major significance in the 
field. 
Regarding as previously discussed, it simply reflects a 
complimentary copy textbook to the petitioner. On appeal, the petitioner 
claimed that the textbook cover reflects of l the petitioner's 1 relevant 
lectures in classrooms witnessed by his compliments." The petitioner failed to submit any 
documentary evidence supporting his assertions. 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. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Regardless, the textbook cover fails 
to demonstrate any evidence of contributions made by the petitioner, let alone original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Regarding the reference letters, they praise the petitioner for his work as an economics professor, 
but they fail to indicate that the petitioner has made original contributions of major significance 
in the field. The letters provide only general statements without offering any specific 
information to establish how the petitioner's work has been of major significance. For example: 
[The petitioner's J interest in students and desire to provide quality educational 
experiences to them is admirable. It was a pleasure to work with him. Since 
he has remained active in his national research and 
"",'U',hU activities. He has a research proposal under consideration for an 
upcoming International Monetary Fund conference. A recent published article of 
-Page II 
his discussed urban development efforts in downtown Baltimore. 
also presented a research paper at the 
conference and another at the 
He currently IS 
BaltimOl:e, MD. 
annual 
teaching conference at_ 
at 
While _ admires the petitioner's teaching abilities, he failed to identify any original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Instead, _ summarized the petitioner's 
accomplishments and teaching experience without establishing that the petitioner's personal 
achievements have impacted the field in a significant manner. 
stated: 
From my conservations with [the petitioner] and reviewing his curriculum vitae, I 
am impressed with what he can bring to an academic department [emphasis 
added]. 
His education is broader than what most economists earn. He complements his 
economics training with studies in business management and sociology. He has 
earned degrees abroad and taught abroad. He also has experience with business 
consulting and working with non-profit organizations. His diverse background 
makes him suitable for a liberal arts college and for participating in 
interdisciplinary/professional programs. 
Similarly failed to indicate any original contributions of major significance in the 
field made by the petitioner. Rather,_ indicated that he was impressed with what the 
petitioner could bring to an academic department without identifying what the petitioner has 
already brought to an academic department that could be considered an original contribution of 
major significance in the field. A petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification bascd 
on the expectation of future eligibility. appears to speculate about how the 
petitioner may affect an academic department at some point in the future. Eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (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 facts. Matter of [zummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. 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. The assertion that the petitioner 
may affect an unspecified academic department at some point in the future is inadequate to 
establish that the beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Moreover, while was impressed with the petitioner's educational background and 
diverse skill sets, 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 
Page 12 
certification process. See Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 
(Comm'r. 1998). 
[The petitioner] has always displayed the highest degree of integrity, 
dependability and knowledge. He has an incredible wealth of knowledge and 
experience that is an invaluable asset and has and will be an immense positive 
impact on his students. I have gained much knowledge and sharpened my skills 
enormously under his tutelage. It would in my opinion be unacceptable to loose 
Isic] his unique presence, skills and knowledge, he is truly an asset to our 
academic community. 
Again, __ praises the petitioner's skills, knowledge, and integrity without identifying an 
original contributions, let alone original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Furthermore, _ indicated the petitioner's influence on his own knowledge and skills 
rather than the influence of the petitioner in the field as a whole. 
pel:iti'Dfl(~r also submitted a memorandum, dated April 19, 2011, from ••••••••• 
who indicated that the petitioner is a candidate for the_ 
In support of the award, the petitioner submitted a 
In the short time that I've had [the petitioner] as a professor, he has helped to 
transcend my fear and lack of knowledge of economics into a confidence and 
understanding of the subject that I never had before. 
[The petitioner's] masterful knowledge of the subject matter and keen awareness 
of his students various academic backgrounds are clearly evident in his pedagogy. 
What I appreciate most about my experiences in his class is that he takes the time 
to explain the concepts, and assess our level of understanding in ways that many 
other professors do not. He's eager for us to learn and comprehend the concepts 
of economics, not just memorize them for the exams. [The petitioner] has not 
only equipped me with a comprehensive understanding of the content, but he has 
also enabled me to draw parallels between the work in his class, with the work in 
my other courses. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a letter from who stated: 
[The petitioner] encourages student interaction in class. He creates a classroom 
environment where students are free to express their thoughts and ideas in 
correspondence to the lectures. Being in this Macroeconomics class, I realized 
that my thirst for knowledge continuously increased leading to my sense of 
excitement when I had to go to class. Increasing a student's drive for education is 
Page 13 
a wonderful accomplishment that l the petitioner J has achieved. Another 
significantly quality he obtains is making students feel a sense of care from him. 
At the end of class, rthe petitioner] always takes the time to wish students a good 
day and encourages us to stay strong. 
It is clear from the letters by_and _ that they highly value the petitioner as a 
professor and admire the petitioner's teaching style. However, they failed to identify any 
original contributions of major significance in the field. Instead, they described the petitioner's 
contributions to their individual academic experiences. There is no indication from their letters 
that the petitioner's contributions have impacted or influenced the field as a whole beyond two 
students. Moreover, while the record of reflects that the petitioner was nominated for 
the after the filing of the petition, there is 
no ., so as to establish that the 
award is representative of original contributions of major significance in the field made by the 
petitioner. The fact that students of the petitioner hold him in high regard as a professor does not 
reflect an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
While those familiar with the petitioner describe him as "knowledgeable," "honest," and 
"dependable," there is insufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has 
made original contributions of major significance in the field. This regulatory criterion not only 
requires the peti tioner to make original contributions, the regulatory criterion also requires those 
contributions to be significant. The AAO is not persuaded by vague, solicited letters that simply 
repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how the petitioner's contributions have already 
influenced the field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy 
the petitioner's burden of proof6 The lack of supporting evidence gives the AAO no basis to 
gauge the significance of the petitioner's present contributions. 
Further, 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). 
However, USCIS is 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 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 of less 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 
6 Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Soya, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (ED.N.Y. 1989), off'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990), Avvr 
Associates. Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
-Page 14 
major significance in the field remphasis added]." The AAO must presume that the phrase 
"major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. Without additional, 
specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, or has 
otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, the AAO cannot conclude that 
he meets this 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. 
In the director's decision, she concluded that the petitioner failed to established eligibility for this 
criterion. On appeal, the petitioner refers to the following documentation: 
I. An article entitled, 
2. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of the 
alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media." Regarding item I, as previously discussed under the published material 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the article was published in 
May 2011, after the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
Therefore, the AAO will not consider this item as evidence to establish the petitioner's eligibility. 
8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (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 facts. Matter or 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. 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." Id. at 176. 
Regarding item 2, the petitioner submitted a program from the on 
Teaching Economics: Instruction and Classroom Based Research. Although the petitIOner 
established that he authored a scholarly article, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary 
evidence demonstrating that the program is a professional or major trade publication or other 
major media, or that the paper was published in a professional or major trade publication or other 
major media. 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of 
the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media." The burden is on the petitioner to establish that he meets every element 
of this criterion. In this case, while the petitioner demonstrated that he authored two scholarly 
Page 15 
articles, the one article was published after the filing of the petition, and the petitioner failed to 
establish that the second article was published in a professional or major trade publication or 
other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director found that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the alien has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation [emphasis added]." In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role 
itself, and a critical role is one in which the alien was responsible for the success or standing of 
the organization or establishment. 
On appeal, the petitioner references the two discussed recommendation letters from 
and Regarding he indicated that the petitioner "did an 
excellent job working with students and teaching his course effectively." The AAO is not 
persuaded that effectively teaching a course is representative of a leading or critical role. 
Similarly, presenting a single presentation for students regarding the economic crisis is not 
demonstrative of a leading or critical role. Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit any other 
documentary evidence regarding his role at The petitioner failed to 
submit, for example, any his position as an adjunct 
professor from the other professors at so as to establish that he performed 
in a leading or critical role. the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
demonstrating that has a distinguished reputation. 
Regarding the letter from he failed to provide any evidence that the l"OlHl~""Ol 
performed in a leading or critical at any organization or establishment. In fact, 
briefly discussed the quality of the petitioner's teaching rather than the petitioner's role at an 
organization or establishment. 
A review of the record of proceeding also reflects that the f'''''''''U'H~l submitted a letter from 
of 
"and eight students from 
attended An Afternoon at of Richmond education program for 
business, finance and economics college students and professors." While the petitioner attended 
the event as a professor with the students, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that this single 
event is representative of a leading or critical role for_ The petitioner failed to submit any 
documentary evidence reflecting tha~significantly benefited as a result of the petitioner's 
attendance, so as to establish that the petitioner's role was leading or critical. 
Page 16 
Furthermore, at submitted documentary evidence reflecting that he was a 
member of the that resolved disputed complaints by 
students regarding their grades. the petitioner submitted documentary evidence 
reflecting that he was the course coordinator regarding final exams for Economics 212. Finally, 
the petitioner submitted a letter from _who stated: 
[The petitioner] has been involved in various departmental academic activities. In 
this capacity, he has taught as well as conducted exams for a number of 
undergraduate and graduate courses, which include undergraduate micro and 
macro principles and graduate macro. He is also part of the committee that 
administers Senior Comprehensive Exams. Last year, he was a member of the 
departmental Committee that arbitrates grade 
disputes between teachers and students. 
IThe petitioner] was recently assigned the responsibilities of coordinating the 
forthcoming departmental seminar series. As a core full-time faculty at the 
economics department of_ the contributions of [the petitioner] are valued. 
While the petitioner served on two committees and coordinated a course, the documentary 
evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to reflect that the petitioner performed in a leading or 
critical role for _ In fact, indicated that the petitioner's contributions were 
"valued" rather than a leading or critical role. Even when compared to the role 
the the petitioner was in a subordinate role. 
Furthermore, based on the documentary evidence, the petitioner's roles were limited to the 
Department of Economics rather than_ as a whole. While the petitioner demonstrated that 
he did not only perform a~ a professor at _ but that he also served on committees and 
coordinated a course for the the record falls far short in reflecting that he performed 
in a leading or critical role for 
The petitioner also submitted pages of the but failed 
to submit any independent. objective evidence demonstrating that has a distinguished 
reputation. The AAO is not persuaded that every educational institution that boasts its history 
and accomplishments demonstrates a distinguished reputation. The petitioner failed to submit 
any documentary evidence, for example, that distinguishes_ from other highly regarded 
colleges or universities. 
pn)ce:eding also contains numerous teaching contracts bet ween 
While the contracts reflect that the petitioner taught courses 
the documentary evidence fails to reflect that the petitioner performed in a 
Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
has a distinguished reputation. 
P~''''''UWd demonstrated that he was employed and 
the petitioner failed to establish that he performed in a leading or critical role 
Page 17 
and that any of the establishments have a distinguished reputation consistent with the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opmlOn, the AAO must next conduct 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[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.ER. § 204.5(h)(2); 
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." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1115. The petitioner established that he met the plain language of the regulation for one of the 
criteria, in which at least three are required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this 
case, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already 
been addressed in the preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In evaluating the final merits determination, the AAO must look at the totality of the evidence to 
conclude the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 203 (b)(1 )(A) of the Act. In this case, the 
petitioner has demonstrated that he has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Paris X and 
has taught economics at the collegiate level. However, the accomplishments of the petitioner fall 
far short of establishing that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor" and that he "has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or 
her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "fal petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." The 
weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), therefore, 
depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A 
lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
"extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the AAO found that the petitioner met the judging criterion pursuant to the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), an evaluation of the significance of the petitioner's judging 
experience is sanctioned under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-11 to determine if such evidence is 
indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this highly restrictive classification. The 
petitioner submitted a letter from who stated that the petitioner peer 
reviewed research works submitted by colleagues and the 
Page 18 
in the 21" Century" The 
petitioner also submitted the previously discussed letter from 
petitioner was "a member of the departmental Committee that 
arbitrates grade disputes between teachers and students" at The AAO notes ihat peer 
review is a routine element of the process by which articles are selected for publication in 
professional journals or for presentation at conferences. Occasional participation in the peer 
review process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a 
professional obligation of professors or scholars who publish themselves in journals or who present 
their work at professional conferences. Normally a journal's editorial staff or a conference 
technical committee will enlist ihe assistance of numerous professionals in the field who agree to 
review submitted papers. It is common for a publication or technical committee to ask multiple 
reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The publication's editorial staff or the 
technical committee may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining whether to 
publish, present, or reject submitted papers. Without evidence pre-dating the filing of the 
petition that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has 
received and completed independent requests for review from a substantial number of journals or 
conferences, served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, or chaired a technical 
committee for a reputable conference, the AAO cannot conclude that the petitioner is among that 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(2). 
Although the petitioner failed to meet the published material criterion pursuant to the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii), the petitioner only submitted one article, which was not about him 
relating to his work, that contained a few quotations made by the petitioner. Nonetheless, the 
petitioner's submission of a single article published less than two weeks from the filing of the 
petition is not reflective of the sustained national or international acclaim required of this highly 
restrictive classification. 
Furthermore, while the AAO found that ihe petitioner failed to meet the original contributions 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(v) and the leading or critical role 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(viii), ihe petitioner based his claims 
of eligibility almost entirely on recommendation letters. It must be emphasized that the 
favorable opinions of experts in ihe field, while not wiihout evidentiary weight, are not a solid 
basis for a successful extraordinary ability claim. Again, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. at 79S. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters 
from individuals, especially when they are colleagues of the petitioner without any prior 
knowledge of the petitioner's work, supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USC IS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's 
eligibility. See id. at 79S-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at SOO, n.2. Again, none of 
thc lctters submitted on behalf of the petitioner reflect any original contributions of major 
significance made by the petitioner or evidence that the petitioner performed in a leading or 
critical role for establishments ihat have a distinguished reputation. 
-Page 19 
Regarding the petitioner's original research findings discussed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
as stated above, they do not appear to rise to the level of contributions of "major significance" in 
the field. Demonstrating that the petitioner's work was "original" in that it did not merely 
duplicate prior research is not useful in setting the petitioner apart through a "career of acclaimed 
work." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). That page (59) also says that "an alien must 
(1) demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, 
business or athletics (as shown through extensive documentation) ... " Research work that is 
unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the petitioner a master's degree, let alone classification as a 
economics professor of extraordinary ability. To argue that all original research is, by definition, 
"extraordinary" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
research is "unoriginal." 
Moroever, although the AAO found that the petitioner failed to meet the authorship of scholarly 
articles criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the AAO notes that the 
petitioner based his claim on a presentation that he failed to establish was published in a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. Even if the petitioner 
demonstrated that the presentation was published, which he did not, the petitioner's submission 
of a single conference occurring approximately 16 months from the filing of the petitioner is not 
demonstrative that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor" and that he "has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 u.s.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Further, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), 2010-11 Edition, 
(accessed at'y'~,-~J'I"cgJ'yj(l.~() on July 11, 2011 and incorporated into the record of proceeding), 
provides information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the 
requirements for such a position. See htlp://www.bls.£ov/oco/pdflocos066.pdf, also incorporated 
into the record of proceeding. The handbook expressly states that faculty members are pressured to 
perform research and publish their work and that the professor's research record is a consideration 
for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs training students for faculty positions require a 
dissertation, or written report on original research. [d. Further, the OOH states specifically with 
respect to economists that a "master's degree usually is the minimum requirement for a job as an 
instructor in a community college. In most colleges and universities, however, a Ph.D. is 
necessary for appointment as an instructor. A Ph.D. and publications in academic journals are 
required for a professorship, tenure, and promotion." See http://www.bls.gov/oco/pdf/ocos055.pdf, 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. This information reveals that original published 
research and publications, whether arising from research at a university or private employer, does 
not set the researcher apart from faculty in the petitioner's field. 
Finally, the AAO cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive 
documentation" of his sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203 (b)(1 )(A) of 
the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the 
Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary 
Page 20 
ability is reflected in this regulation by requmng the peutlOner to present more extensive 
documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5. 
1991). 
In this matter, the evidence of record falls short of demonstrating the petitioner's sustained 
national or international acclaim as a professor of economics. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) requires "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by 
evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and this his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." While the petitioner submitted 
documentation demonstrating that he has taught at three universities or colleges in the United 
States, the petitioner failed to submit any documentation consistent with or indicative of 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
The conclusion the AAO reaches by considering the evidence to meet each category of evidence 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields. In this case, the petitioner has not established his achievements at the 
time of filing the petition were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim, or 
that he was among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
aJi'd, 345 F.3d at 683; see a/so So/tane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.