dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
identifiine data deleted to 
 Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
8- Washington, DC 20529-2090 
prevent clearly uraivmanted 
invasion of personal privacy 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 07 235 5301 1 
 MAY 2 7 2009 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Aiien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
g.lohn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in education. The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204,5(h)(3). 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that she meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
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 
(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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on July 17, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in education. The petitioner holds a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana- 
Champaign (1996). At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a tenured Associate 
Professor at Southwest Minnesota State University. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. 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. 
9 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted correspondence fkom January 1986 indicating that she was the recipient of 
a Program for Decentralized Educational Development-International Bank for Reconstruction and 
Development fellowship grant to pursue a "Master in Education" degree at the University of Illinois 
at Urbana-Champaign. This fellowship grant represents financial support for the petitioner's 
graduate studies rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence 
in the field of endeavor. University study is not a field of endeavor, but rather training for future 
employment in a field of endeavor. The petitioner's receipt of this educational development 
scholarship is not an indication that she "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2). Receipt of such a fellowship offers no 
meaningful comparison between the petitioner and educators working in the field who had long 
since completed their graduate studies. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a certificate from the 
"Early Childhood Higher Education Faculty Initiative" acknowledging that she participated in "the 
Initiative Pilot Cohort, 2001-2002" training. There is no evidence showing that this certificate is a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence, rather than simply an 
acknowledgment of the petitioner's participation in a training program. 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence also included a "Certificate of 
Recognition" issued to her by the "Republic of the Philippines Department of Education, Culture 
and Sports Region 1; DIVISION OF ILOCOS NORTE Laoag City" (1998). The certificate honors 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
the petitioner "for hislher meritorious and outstanding services as a Special Education Teacher and 
in recognition of hislher active involvement in the implementation of the DECS [Department of 
Education, Culture and Sports] programs, projects and trusts.'72 In addressing this certificate, the 
director's decision stated that it did not constitute a nationally recognized prize or award and that 
there was "no indication that this [certificate] was awarded for anything more than a job well done." 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that the director's latter statement "is thoroughly unfair and 
patronizing." We concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has not established that her 
recognition certificate is tantamount to a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. We 
cannot ignore that the issuing entity was local rather than national or international. For example, the 
certificate bears the sub-heading "DIVISION OF ILOCOS NORTE Laoag City" and bears 
signatures from the "Assistant Schools Division Superintendent" and the "Schools Division 
Superintendent." Local or regional recognition does not meet the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically 
requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of 
endeavor and it is her burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case, there is no 
evidence showing that petitioner's certificate had a significant level of recognition beyond the 
presenting entity. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classiJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satis@ this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from Cambridge Who's Who referring to her as an 
"HONORED MEMBER and stating that she "QUALIFIED FOR INCLUSION IN THE 2006-2007 
EDITION OF THE CAMBRIDGE WHO'S WHO REGISTRY OF EXECUTIVES AND 
PROFESSIONALS." There is no evidence (such as membership bylaws) showing the admission 
requirements for becoming an "HONORED MEMBER" of Cambridge Who's Who. We cannot 
conclude that the petitioner's qualification for inclusion in this comprehensive professional directory 
2 
 The existence of the term "hislher" on this certificate suggests that this is a standardized certificate. The record does 
not include information from the presenting entity indicating the number of recipients in the petitioner's school division 
who were similarly recognized. 
is tantamount to her membership in an association in the field for which classification is sought. 
Qualifying for inclusion as one of thousands of other successll professionals in a frequently 
published registry does not meet the plain language of this regulatory criterion and is not evidence of 
national or international a~claim.~ 
The petitioner submitted a certificate stating that she was initiated into the University of Illinois 
Chapter of Phi Delta Kappa (PDK) in 1986. There is no evidence showing the petitioner's 
membership status in the last decade or the duration of her membership. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits general information about PDK from its internet site, but this information does not include 
its requirements for admission to membership. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate stating that she was initiated into the Alpha Chapter of the 
Kappa Delta Pi (KDP) International Honor Society (1991). There is no evidence showing the 
petitioner's membership status in the last decade or the duration of her membership. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits information printed from the Association of College Honor Societies internet site 
indicating that KDP has 46,078 members. This internet site lists KDP's eligibility requirements as 
follows: "Undergraduate students with no less than final-term sophomore standing, graduate 
students, all preparing to be certified to teach, with grade point indices in the upper fifth of the 
institution." 
The petitioner also submits information printed from KDP's internet site stating: 
Membership in an active institutional chapter of Kappa Delta Pi depends on the following 
criteria: 
Intent to continue in the field of education. 
Leadership attributes. 
Undergraduates must have first-term sophomore standing (30 semester hours), a GPA of 
3.0 out of 4.0 (or its equivalent), and at least 12 semester hours (or its equivalent) in 
educational courses programmed, in progress, or completed. 
Graduate students must have regular admission status in an accredited institution, six or 
more semester hours (or its equivalent) in that institution, at least 12 semester hours (or 
its equivalent) of education courses, and a graduate-level GPA of at least 3.25 out of 
4.0. 
Some chapters have established a more stringent GPA requirement. Please check with the 
local chapter to see if you qualifl. 
We cannot conclude that student achievement, such as having a GPA in the upper fifth of one's 
educational institution or having a graduate-level GPA of at least 3.25, equates to outstanding 
achievements in the petitioner's field. Academic success in pursuit of an educational degree is not 
an indication that an individual "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
The record does not include a copy of the petitioner's actual entry in the 2006-2007 edition. 
Page 6 
field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa 
classification, intended for established individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather 
than for promising students progressing toward the top of the field at some unspecified future time. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted general information about 
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the National Association of Early 
Childhood Teacher Educators (NAECTE). The record, however, does not include the petitioner's 
membership credentials for these organizations. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by 
the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
 In this instance, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner actually holds membership in the NCTM or the NAECTE. 
Further, there is no evidence showing the admission requirements for these organizations. 
In this case, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner holds membership in an 
organization requiring outstanding achievements its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in her field or an allied one. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that 
she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in profesional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which classiJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In addressing the petitioner's evidence for this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The petitioner submitted several articles about her work that were published in the Marshall 
Independent, which bills itself as "Southwest Minnesota's Daily Newspaper." No evidence was 
submitted that would indicate that this newspaper, which caters to a rural section of Minnesota, 
can be considered a major trade publication or major media which is national in scope. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that this regulatory criterion "is not limited to national media." The 
petitioner's appellate submission includes information printed from the City of Marshall's internet site 
stating that the city has a "population of 13,000 residents." The issue here is not the population or 
community profile of Marshall, Minnesota, but rather whether the Marshall Independent newspaper 
constitutes a form of major media in the United States. The plain language of this regulatory criterion 
specifically requires that the articles about the petitioner appear "in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media." [Emphasis added.] There is no evidence (such as circulation 
statistics) showing that the Marshall Independent qualifies as a form of "major" media in ths country. 
An alien cannot earn acclaim at the national level fiom a local or regional publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
Page 7 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers such as 
the Marshall ~nde~endent.~ 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
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 alliedjeld of speczjcation for which classijication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] 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." Evidence 
of the petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The 
weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 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. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
 For example, evaluating the work of 
accomplished professors is of far greater probative value than evaluating the work of graduate or 
undergraduate students. 
The petitioner submitted approval pages bearing her signature for five graduate students' research 
papers at Southwest Minnesota State University. In addressing this evidence, the director's decision 
stated: 
The petitioner submitted evidence that she served as a member of a committee which approved 
the research papers of graduate students at Southwest Minnesota State University, where she 
teaches. However, graduate students cannot be considered to be at the same level as professors, 
and so are not in the same area of specialization as the petitioner. Further, this is simply a duty 
which a professor would be expected to perform in the normal course of her duties. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "The petitioner and graduate students are both specialists in their own 
fields. . . . Not any professor can serve in a committee to judge the research papers of graduate students. 
The petitioner sat on a special committee created to judge the work of others." The plain language of 
this regulatory criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification." We cannot conclude that evaluating the work of 
students at one's university, who are preparing for a future career in the field, meets this requirement. 
Further, while a professor does evaluate the work of students, this evaluation process is inherent in 
the process of teaching at a university. The petitioner's status on the committee demonstrates her 
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. 
knowledge and competency as an educator, but she has not established that her position meets the 
plain language of this regulatory criterion or that it is indicative of sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of her field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets 
this criterion.. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
In addressing the petitioner's evidence for this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The petitioner submitted letters from various conference organizers thanking her for giving 
presentations at the conferences. In response to the Service's request for additional evidence, 
the petitioner submitted evidence that she helped to develop a graduate program in Early 
Childhood Education at SMSU, and that she submitted a proposal for teacher training that 
resulted in at least one workshop. However, in order for a contribution to be considered 
significant, it should be both original and have a demonstrable influence on the field. Again, 
these are the type of contributions that are expected of professors, and there is no indication 
that they constitute a breakthrough in the field of education. 
We concur with the director's findings. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an April 7, 2009 letter from 
 System Director for 
Faculty Development, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, stating: 
This letter is to summarize for you several recent presentations by [the petitioner] at 
systemwide faculty conferences in the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. 
Particularly in her role as a professor of education, [the petitioner's] presentations helped to 
further the system's strategic goals to improve the number and quality of teachers that we 
educate. Her projects related to the use of eFolio Minnesota modeled for educators at every 
level how to use new technologies for learning and assessment. Finally, by sharing a service- 
learning project that involved preservice teachers with middle- and high-school students, she 
demonstrated how faculty can cross bridges to collaborate with and serve our schools - and 
learn a great deal in the process. 
Our records show that [the petitioner] contributed to her colleagues' professional 
development in the following sessions: 
Realizing Student Potential: ITeach Conference, February 27-28, 2009, Minneapolis, 
MN (attended by 1,260 faculty from Minnesota's 32 public colleges and universities). 
Page 9 
Realizing Student Potential: ITeach Conference, February 28-March 1, 2008, 
Minneapolis, MN (attended by 1,100 faculty). 
Realizing Student Potential: ITeach Conference, February 24, 2006, Minneapolis, MN 
(attended by 1,008 faculty from Minnesota's 32 public colleges and universities). 
0 AfJirming Diversity Through a Community Service Project 
Karen Sterner, [the petitioner] and Ruth Saad-Eldein Southwest Minnesota State 
University 
The session focused on how faculty can help prospective teachers gain an 
understanding of and empathy for the life challenges and concerns of adolescents 
fi-om diverse groups. It presented lessons learned from a service-learning project 
that reached out to diverse middle school and high school students. 
The petitioner has not established that her presentations had a significant impact beyond the 
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system. Further, with regard to the petitioner's 
presentations at the 2008 and 2009 Realizing Student Potential: I Teach Conferences, we note that 
these presentations post-date the filing of the petition. A petitioner, however, must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's 2008 and 2009 
conference presentations in this proceeding. 
With regard to the petitioner's other conference presentations, in the field of education, acclaim is 
generally not established by the mere act of presenting one's work at a conference along with dozens 
of other participants. Nothing in the record indicates that the presentation of one's work is unusual 
in the petitioner's field or that invitation to present at the sessions where she spoke was a privilege 
extended to only a few top educators. Many professional fields regularly hold conferences to present 
new work, discuss new findings, and 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 establish that the petitioner 
has made original contributions of major significance in her field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has presented her work at 
various conferences, helped to develop a graduate program in Early Childhood Education at her 
university, and submitted a proposal for teacher training that resulted in at least one workshop, the 
evidence of record does not establish that this work is tantamount to original scholarly contributions 
of major significance in her field. For example, the petitioner's supporting evidence does not 
establish that her work has had a substantial national or international impact, nor does it show that 
her field has significantly changed as a result of her work. Without evidence showing that the 
petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout her field, or has 
otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that 
she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in profesional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted an editorial she wrote for The Normalite Bulletin, the "Official School 
Organ" of the "Northern Luzon Teachers College Laoag City." The petitioner also submitted 
evidence that her article, entitled "Caught in a Web: A book review of Gagamb," appeared in the 
Spring 2007 issue of the California Association for Asian PaciJic American Education Newsletter. 
There is no evidence showing that the preceding school bulletin and newsletter qualify as major 
publications or some other form of major media. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a search results printout 
from Google Scholar reflecting that her 1996 doctoral dissertation at the University of Illinois at 
Urbana-Champaign, entitled "Paradigm Development Among Practicing School Mathematics 
Teachers," had four citations.' The record, however, does not include evidence showing that the 
petitioner's doctoral dissertation was ever published, or that it appeared in a professional or major 
trade publication or some other form of major media. With regard to the Google Scholar citation 
history submitted by the petitioner, numerous independent cites to the petitioner's scholarly work 
would provide solid evidence that other educators have been influenced by her work and are familiar 
with it. On the other hand, few or no citations of an article authored by the petitioner may indicate 
that her work has gone largely unnoticed by her field. In this case, the petitioner submitted evidence 
showing that her work has been cited an aggregate of four times by the same two authors - 
and While these citations demonstrate a small degree of interest in her scholarly 
work, they are not sufficient to demonstrate that her articles have attracted a level of interest in her 
field consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
As discussed, the petitioner also submitted evidence showing that her work has been presented at 
educational conferences. The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included 
documentation regarding her November 7, 2007 presentation at the Fall 2007 National Association 
of Early Childhood Teacher Educators Conference and her April 11, 2008 presentation at the 
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 2008 convention. We note that these presentations 
post-date the filing of the petition. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the 
AAO will not consider this evidence in this proceeding. 
The Google Scholar printout lists five cites, but one of them (from an opinion editorial in Journal of Curriculum 
Studies) was a duplicate. 
The petitioner's March 19, 2008 letter submitted in response to the director's request for evidence 
requests that her conference presentations be considered as comparable evidence for this regulatory 
criterion. The petitioner's conference presentations have already been addressed under the 
preceding regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(v). Further, there is no evidence showing 
that the conference presentations for which the petitioner requests re-evaluation of as comparable 
evidence constitute achievements and recognition consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of her field. Nevertheless, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows for 
the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria "do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable 
evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's 
occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). In fact, the petitioner has argued that she meets nine of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of the regulatory criteria, the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable 
evidence. 
In addressing the petitioner's evidence for this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The petitioner submitted evidence that her dissertation has been cited five times by other 
professors and researchers in the field of education, as well as evidence that she continues to 
present her research at professional conferences. However, the evidence does not indicate 
that the petitioner's articles and/or presentations have received national or international 
acclaim. The Occupational Outlook Handbook, published by the U.S. Department of Labor, 
states the following in the section concerning Postsecondary Teachers: 
Faculty keep abreast of developments in their field by reading current literature, 
talking with colleagues, and participating [i]n professional conferences. They also do 
their own research to expand knowledge in their field. . . . From this process, they 
arrive at conclusions, and publish their findings in scholarly journals, books, and 
electronic media. 
The submitted evidence does not indicate that the petitioner's publications have gone beyond 
what is expected of all university faculty members. 
We concur with the director's findings. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected her. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted a July 16, 2007 letter from ~egional Educator, Leadership 
& Civic Engagement, University of Minnesota Extension Regional Center, Marshall, stating: 
This letter is intended to show evidence of [the petitioner's] critical roles in the Marshall 
Early Childhood Coalition, and the Emerging Leadership Investment Program in the 
Community of Marshall, Minnesota. 
[The petitioner] has been an active coalition member since its inception in Marshall in 2003. 
[The petitioner] is a very valuable coalition member and takes her civic engagement 
responsibilities very seriously. [The petitioner] has actively participated in the coalition 
events including; monthly meetings, regional and state early childhood conferences, 
Children's Defense Fund "Kid's Count Coffee," Early Childhood Caucus, Coalition Speak 
Out, Childcare Provider Recognition and other events. [The petitioner] has been 
instrumental in bringing about collaboration with Southwest Minnesota State University and 
the Marshall Early Childhood Coalition to co-sponsor the annual "Week of the Young Child 
Carnival" in Marshall. Through [the petitioner's] leadership her students participated in 
surveying parents around school readiness, assisted on the Coats for Kids service project and 
attended the Voices for Children Advocacy Day for the past four years. 
[The petitioner] has been an invaluable assist [sic] and role model to persons of color in the 
community as she assisted and attended the Emerging Leadership Investment Program. The 
program provides participants with the opportunities to: increase their knowledge and skills 
as community leaders; expand their community leadership networks; and expand their 
leadership engagement in community issues and organizations. [The petitioner's] presence 
and engagement speaks volumes of her commitment to public service and to the local 
community. 
In res onse to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a March 17,2008 letter from 
db Program Officer, Southwest Initiative Foundation, "A Rural Minnesota Community 
Foundation," stating: 
[The petitioner] has been involved in the Early Childhood Initiative, a proactive program of 
the Southwest Initiative Foundation. The Southwest Initiative Foundation is a rural, regional 
community foundation that has been in operation in the eighteen counties of southwest 
Minnesota for nearly 22 years. . . . During the nearly four years since the creation of the 
Marshall Area Early Childhood coalition, [the petitioner] has participated as a community 
coalition member and has offered key professional insight to the plans and projects 
developed by the community team. In addition, [the petitioner] has actively sought 
opportunities to mobilize the student engagement and manpower of her students in projects, 
Page 13 
advocacy efforts and research activities of the coalition. This partnership with SMSU has 
proven to not only be mutually beneficial, but also an excellent training and networking 
opportunity for students and community members alike. It exemplifies visionary leadership 
and commitment to those she works with and trains to serve our youngest citizens in 
Minnesota and across the nation. Many activities and efforts of the Marshall Area coalition 
would not have come to fruition or have been as successful as they were had [the petitioner] 
not been involved with expert guidance, linkages to the youth assets and been instrumental in 
the implementation of the actual activities to better equip future educators and parents. She 
has been an enormous asset to our efforts! 
[The petitioner] has worked hard to build bridges between the community and the college 
while working to deliver the most cutting edge academic programming to students. She has 
kept close contact with the field workforce to stay abreast of challenges and opportunities, 
matching her students and their studies to meet them head on. In my estimation, she is a well 
qualified leader and partner to our endeavors, not only based on academic credentials, but on 
her commitment to the community as a whole and helping everyone, fiom the local to 
national levels, see the University as the resource it can be to create communities that thrive. 
In addressing the petitioner's evidence for this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The petitioner submitted evidence in the form of letters which describe her participation in 
community outreach and education programs in the Marshall, Minnesota area. Although 
these programs may have distinguished reputations in the Marshall area, no evidence was 
submitted to suggest that these are nationally prominent organizations. 
We concur with the director's finding. While the petitioner has performed admirably for various local 
projects of the Southwest Initiative Foundation, the Marshall Early Childhood Coalition, and the 
Emerging Leadership Investment Program, there is no evidence showing that these organizations 
had a distinguished national reputation. With regard to the petitioner's position as Associate 
Professor at Southwest Minnesota State University, there is no evidence fiom her superiors (such as 
the President, Provost, or Dean) demonstrating that her role was leading or critical for the university. 
Further, the record lacks evidence showing that the university has a distinguished reputation. The 
documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that she was responsible for the preceding 
organizations' success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" 
and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the3eld. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted copies of her Forms W-2, 
Wage and Tax Statements, reflecting earnings of $56,523.66 in 2004, $59,650.20 in 2005, $68,156.84 
in 2006, and $61,807.64 in 2007. The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that she earned 
consultancy fees of $4,776.72 in 2006 and $400.00 in 2007. The plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of a high salary "in relation to others in the field." 
The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that her compensation was significantly high in 
relation to others in her field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that she earned 
consultancy fees of $4,776.72 in 2006 and $400.00 in 2007. The petitioner's field, however, is not in 
"the performing arts." The petitioner's March 19,2008 letter submitted in response to the director's 
request for evidence requests that her consultancy earnings be considered as comparable evidence 
for this regulatory criterion. The petitioner's consultancy earnings have already been addressed 
under the preceding regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ix). As discussed, the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria 
"do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes the 
consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for visa 
preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this 
criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate her 
receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualifL as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence 
to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent 
that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of her fieId. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her 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. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.