dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: MAY 23 2011 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § l153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
infonnation 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 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Fonn I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
/perryRhe 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition and reaffirmed that decision on motion. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classifY the beneficiary as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in education, 
pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the hnmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(I)(A). The director determined the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary enjoys 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualifY for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner 
must submit qualifYing evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to 
establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons stated below, the petitioner 
has not established the beneficiary's eligibility for the classification sought. Moreover, the record raises 
questions regarding the beneficiary's intent to continue working in her area of expertise. 
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 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), ajJ'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 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) 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 
Page 3 
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 (USerS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 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 oflesser 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; 
(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; 
Page 4 
(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.l 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." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. 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[ir] field of endeavor," 
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. § I I 53(b)(I)(A)(i). 
I 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.S(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
Id. at 1119-20. 
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 Service Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(I)(iv); Soltane, 381 FJd at 
145; Spencer Enterprises, Inc., 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, aff'd, 345 F.3d at 683 (recognizing the 
AAO's de novo authority). 
II. Prior Nonimmigrant Visa Petition Approval 
While USC1S has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the 
beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude USC1S from denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant 
petitions are denied after USC1S approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. 
Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). 
Because USC1S spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant 
petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. 
INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 
WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude USC1S from denying an 
extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of beneficiary's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 1&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r. 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USC1S or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between 
a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
III. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Initially, counsel asserted that the beneficiary's baccalaureate and two Master's degrees and her work 
towards a third Master's degree and Ph.D. are relevant evidence of her extraordinary ability. The 
Page 6 
record contains only the beneficiary's baccalaureate, a single Master in Management degree and a 
transcript of credits towards a Ph.D. Regardless, while education is a relevant consideration for 
establishing exceptional ability pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Act, it is not a relevant 
consideration for establishing extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) with the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Similarly, counsel initially asserted that the beneficiary's 22 years of experience in academia is a 
relevant consideration. Once again, while 10 years of experience is a relevant consideration for 
establishing exceptional ability pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Act, it is not a relevant 
consideration for establishing extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act. 
Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) with the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
At issue is whether the petitioner submitted qualifying evidence under the pertinent regulation, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). A discussion of those criteria follows2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner initially submitted several certificates and submitted additional evidence relating to the 
entities issuing those certificates in response to the director's request for additional evidence. The 
director concluded that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary's certificates were 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. Counsel does not challenge tliat 
determination either on motion or on appeal. 
The certificates of recognition the petitioner submitted are all from institutions with which the 
beneficiary has worked either directly or by recruiting students to participate in the institutions' 
international programs. The title of the recognition, such as "international recognition" from the 
American Hospital Academy in Hilton Head for whom the beneficiary recruited students, are not 
determinative. It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate the recognition of these awards. In addition, 
some certificates simply recognize the beneficiary's participation in events, including as a speaker. 
These certificates are not nationally or internationally recognized prizes or award for excellence. Other 
certificates recognize academic accomplishments as a student. Such certificates are not nationally or 
internationally recognized awards or prizes for excellence in the field of education. Finally, some of 
the certificates recognize volunteer work, such as the certificate from Community Extension Services. 
These certificates are not prizes or awards for excellence in the field of education. 
In light of the above, the director's determination that the petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence 
that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) is correct. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
Page 7 
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. 
Initially and in response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserted that the 
petitioner was submitting evidence of the beneficiary's membership in qualifying associations. The 
director determined that the associations of which the beneficiary is a member do not reqUIre 
outstanding achievements. Counsel does not contest that conclusion on motion or on appeal. 
The only association of which the beneficiary is a member for which the petitioner submitted 
membership requirements is the Nutritionist-Dietitians' Association. The record establishes that the 
association initiated "Continuing Professional Education as a requirement for renewal to Active 
Membership." This information does not suggest that the association requires outstanding 
achievements for admission to membership. 
In light of the above, the director correctly determined that the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
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 specification for which classification is sought. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel included "4" among the regulatory 
criteria the beneficiary allegedly meets. Counsel, however, failed to address what evidence the 
petitioner was submitting in support of that assertion. The director concluded that the record did not 
contain evidence of the beneficiary serving, either individually or on a panel as "a judge." Counsel 
does not contest this conclusion on appeal or on motion. 
The record contains no evidence that the beneficiary served individually or on a panel as "a judge" (as 
opposed to having incidental review responsibilities as a teacher or a dean). Thus, the AAO concurs 
with the director's determination that the record contains no evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director failed to 
seasoning packet usin~sometimes referred to as 
that counsel asserts has benefitted other schools and programs. 
beneficiary's development of a 
her development of curriculum 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, has 
some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of education, it can 
Page 8 
be expected that the impact would already be apparent in the field at the national level. Otherwise, it 
is difficult to gauge the impact of the beneficiary's work. 
Moreover, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires evidence of 
contributions in the plural, consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. 
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 "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria 
has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance 
from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. 3 
The record contains a letter inviting the beneficiary to speak about food safety at the Philippine 
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and a certificate confirming the beneficiary's presentation on 
the subject of food safety. The speech was part of Consumer Welfare Month, sponso~ 
the . Price Coordinating Council. The event took place in Naga City, where_ 
the institution where the beneficiary served as a dean, is located. Thus, this 
dernOllstrate the beneficiary'S influence beyond Naga City. 
and 
presenlted to the Research and Development 
The record contains no evidence that 
respoillse to the director's request for additional submitted a letter from 
a professor and researcher at _ that the beneficiary "served 
mentc)r and su~ attempt of doing the department's experimental research" 
_contmues: 
This citation is hereby given to [the beneficiary], who made an important contribution in 
the initial planning and conceptualization of the experimental research, and gave the 
author innovative ways to ultimately achieve the highest level of research for national 
support and funding. 
further asserts that a national technical committee of the Department of Science and 
Technology and the Philippine Council for Industry and Energy Research evaluated and funded the 
3 See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com 
Inc. v. Cherto./f, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (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 combination of academic credentials). 
Page 9 
project for production and corrunercialization. While funding may demonstrate that a project has 
promise, not every funded project is already a contribution of major significance. 
On motion, the . from the beneficiary asserting that she is known in the 
Philippines as the and that the project "has now reached a near successful 
conclusion due to the Philippines Department of ~e Department of Science and 
Technology granting_funding to bring the ___ to market." The beneficiary 
further asserts that development is in the final stages and that the seasoning will be available for 
distribution to local food and nutrition stores in two to three .ars. On appeal, the beneficiary asserts 
that she donated a pending patent for the seasoning mix to but still claims to be pursuing the 
marketing herself. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Corrun'r. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!' Comm'r. 1972)). Moreover, the 
beneficiary does not explain how a product that has yet to be marketed can constitute a contribution of 
major significance. Furthermore, the beneficiary does not explain how this project could be considered 
a contribution to the field of nutrition education rather than the culinary arts. 
submits letters purporting to document the impact of the beneficiary's 
Acting Food Service Manager at the University of the Philippines in Quezon 
City, asserts that the beneficiary began developing training students in the 1990's and that she "shared 
her vision of creating training standards." continues: 
This development model has been considered in our commitment for the affiliating 
program, to continue providing excellent competency-based training for Nutrition and 
Dietetics and Food Service students. 
The u.P. Food Service would like to acknowledge [the beneficiary's] excellent 
contributions to this institution, an ideal premise for Food Service Practicum Program. 
This letter is extremely vague and ambiguous and does not affirm that the University of the Philippines 
adopted the curriculum for the Bachelor of Science in Food Service and Institutional Management" that 
the beneficiary developed. 
University of 
beneficiary has "carried out invaluable contributions to her 
school, other Colleges and Universities of the region by guiding 
students to participate in international learning experiences" in Singapore and the United States .• 
~oes not explain how this impact extended beyond the students at USI or in Naga City. 
In a second letter submitted on appeal,_discusses the beneficiary's Master thesis study in 2000 
on eating practice~ City that "has brought significance directions for the students to undergo 
related studies." _ asserts that nursing students at the University of Nueva Caceres "were 
motivated and inspired by the model [the beneficiary] designed for her study." _ provides no 
examples of nursing students publishing work that cites the beneficiary'S thesis, which is itself 
unpublished. Instead_ asserts that students attended the beneficiary's • seminar. _ 
does not assert that the University of Nueva Cae eras adopted the beneficiary'S curriculum for a 
Bachelor of Science in Food Service and Institutional Management. This letter does not demonstrate 
the beneficiary's influence beyond N aga City where_is located. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter purportedly of the Nursing 
Department at Naga College. The letter is unsigned has no evidentiary value. Regardless, 
the beneficiary worked as a part time professor at that college and the letter would not establish the 
beneficiary's impact beyond N aga City. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated the impact of the beneficiary's curriculum 
beyond institutions where she has taught in Naga City. 
The petitioner did submit additional general reference letters. research scientist at 
the Northern California Cancer Center, asserts that he "became [the beneficiary] in 
1999" and that he consults her on the assessment of dietary behaviors when developing hypotheses for 
epidemiological studies. _ praises the beneficiary's contributions to. and her study, but does 
not explain how the beneficiary's influence of the beneficiary's leadership at _ and unpublished 
study has extended beyond~r Naga City. 
an adjunct professor at Tufts University, explains that she met the 
. doing field research in the Philippines. _ states that the b~anged 
give a seminar at USI because she attended the school previously. _ affinns 
that the beneficiary contributed to. and Naga College and "would" contribute to academic programs 
at other institutions. This letter does not explain how the beneficiary has already impacted the field of 
nutritional education. 
Niagara University, states 
to conduct a workshop on Vincentian Academic Service _ 
cotlfirms that the beneficiary was the COlmrrlittt:e 
_for this visit and praises her work ethic. does not any ex,unIlles 
the beneficiary has impacted the field of or even assert generally that the beneficiary 
has done so. 
an assistant professor 
beneficiary as "innovative" and "outstanding. 
her Ph.D. at _ characterizes the 
notes that the beneficiary has been a 
member of organizing committees for seminar workshops and is an involved manager_ fails 
to explain how the beneficiary is impacting the field of nutrition education. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BlA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or 
provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. 4 The 
opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, 
in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 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. 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; uscrs may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 
500, n.2 (BlA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to 
"fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of 
contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how 
those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 5 The 
petitioner also failed to submit sufficient corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation 
of the petition, which could have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
In light ofthe above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifYing evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
4 Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) ajJ'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 
2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO' s conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to 
[the alien's] contributions in the field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 
596 F.3d at 1122. 
S Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, afJ'd, 905 F. 2d at 41; Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 
WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, uscrs need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756. Inc 
v. The Attorney General of the United States. 745 F. Supp. 9,15 (D.C. Dis!. 1990). 
Page 12 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the beneficiary "has been an invited speaker at several Nutritional 
conferences, and has published several scholarly articles in her area of expertise." While the petitioner 
submitted unpublished manuscripts, the petitioner submitted no evidence that the beneficiary had 
published these manuscripts in any forum, let alone in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. The record also lacks published conference proceedings containing the beneficiary's 
work. The only evidence of speeches document presentations~here the beneficiary served as a 
dean and the Consumer Welfare Month event in Naga City where _is located. Counsel did not 
advance this claim in later filings. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The beneficiary served as Dean of the 
at _ The petitioner also Commission on Higher Education 
issued an Award of Distinction 2001 and a Plaque of Recognition in 2008. The director 
concluded that the role of dean was not leading or critical for. The director noted that. 
employed seven deans and other administrators above those deans. On motion and again on appeal, 
counsel notes the beneficiary's efforts in designing new curriculum for_ that attracted additional 
enrollment a_ 
The record reveals that. issued a Citation of Recognition to the beneficiary for services during 2004 
through 2006. The citation notes her work in . international and 
dedication to academia. 
Commission of Higher Education, certifies that as Dean of the Department 
beneficiary "was one of the prime mover[ s 1 in the enhancement and improvement 
of the curriculum for the opening of the new Bachelor of Science in Food Service and 
Institutional Management (BSFSIM)." On appeal, President of_ 
confirms the beneficiary's achievements at • including development of approved curriculum and 
increased enrollment. 
While the beneficiary may not have played a leading role for ~s a whole, the record adequately 
establishes that the beneficiary played a critical role for_ The plain language of the regulation, 
however, states that the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary performed in a leading or 
critical role for organizations or establishments in the plural. This requirement is consistent with the 
statutory requirement for extensive documentation. 
Page 13 
As the record documents only a single critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation, 
the petitioner has not submitted qualitying evidence that meets the plain language requirements set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The director concluded that the petitioner submitted qualitying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The record does not support this finding. 
In a joint letter o~confirm that the beneficiary "received a 
monthly compensation of 52,976.20 pesos. In support of this letter, the petitioner submitted the 
beneficiary's biweekly pay slips for August and September 2006. These pay slips reflect 10,250 pesos 
in "basic" pay and 10,738.10 pesos in "other" pay for gross pay of20,988.10 pesos. The petitioner also 
submitted the beneficiary's honorarium biweekly pay slips for 5,500 pesos. These documents establish 
that the beneficiary earned an approximate basic monthly salary of 20,500 pesos (10,250 x 2) and a 
basic annual salary of266,500 pesos (10,250 x 26). Adding her "other" pay and honorarium, she earned 
a month~n of 52,976.20 pesos and an annual remuneration of 688,690.60 pesos. In 
addition_Director of Human Resources at-=ollege, confirms that the beneficiary 
earned an average monthly stipend of 20,000 pesos as a consultant and part-time professor for that 
university. 
In a separate letter, that the "basic 
from 15,976 pesos per month to 21,000 pesos per month. 
Sur Polytechnic Colleges, confirms that the deans at that 
13,300 pesos and 19,168 pesos. 
Northeastern Philippines, confirms 
between 14,400 pesos and 15,360 pesos. 
University of Nueva Caceres, confirms that annual salaries for deans at that university are between 
300,000 pesos and 360,000 pesos. 
A comparison of the beneficiary's entire remuneration, including her basic pay, her "other" pay and her 
honorarium with the basic pay of other deans is not a useful comparison. The beneficiary's basic pay 
appears comparable with the basic pay of other deans in the Philippines. Without documentation as to 
the "other" pay and honorariums paid to these other deans, the petitioner cannot establish that the 
beneficiary's other remuneration is significantly high. 
Finally, the fact that the beneficiary worked a second job not determinative. A 
petitioner cannot establish that an alien earns a high salary or other significantly high remuneration by 
showing that the alien chose to work at more than one job. 
As the petitioner did not provide evidence of the other remuneration beyond basic salary earned by 
other deans, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that would support a conclusion that the 
beneficiary's other remuneration was significantly high. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three of the 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Nevertheless, the AAO will 
review the evidence in the aggregate as part of the final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step is 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[irJ field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 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." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
The beneficiary's services were clearly of value~hich promoted the beneficiary to the 
position of dean and compensated her at least consistently with that position if not more. The 
position and compensation, however, appear commensurate with her years of experience III 
academia. Not every well compensated college dean enjoys national or international acclaim. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the beneficiary as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The beneficiary, an experienced 
college dean who has not published a single article, relies in part on her preliminary development of a 
seasoning packet that has yet to be marketed and has little relevance to the field of nutrition education. 
She also relies on the development of curriculum for a specific program at one university. The record 
contains no evidence that this curriculum is widely utilized in the Philippines. While the beneficiary 
has clearly benefitted her individual students through her promotion of study abroad programs in 
Singapore and the United States, she did not develop these programs herself; rather, she prepared her 
students to participate in programs developed by others. This evidence, even in the aggregate, does not 
demonstrate that the beneficiary enjoys sustained national or international acclaim or that she is one of 
the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. 
III. Seeking to Work in Her Area of Expertise 
The record also includes evidence that raises questions as to whether the beneficiary will primarily be 
working in her area of expertise, nutrition education. Initially, the petitioner affirmed that it was 
offering the beneficiary a position as a School Director. The petitioner submitted brochures 
establishing that it operates two nursing homes. It claims, however, that it is developing a continuing 
education training program for recertification of administrators. The petitioner submitted a two-hour 
course outline the beneficiary prepared for the petitioner, the petitioner's training brochure listing food 
and nutrition training courses, a handout for a two-hour course that is purportedly approved for 
continuing education, curriculum for in-house training and an unpublished Food Service Program 
Model. The petitioner did not submit any evidence that it is operating as a school or from the State of 
California confirming that it has approved the beneficiary's curriculum. 
Significantly, the record contains several letters from individuals who have relatives staying at the 
petitioner's nursing homes. _ confirms that he attended a nutrition workshop for staff, 
residents and fa~ere the beneficiary demonstrated the preparation of zucchini bread 
and smoothies. __ however, states that the beneficiary ~·s the onl staff member his 
mother remembers and smiles when the beneficiary comes for a visit. raises the 
beneficiary's hands on training for the petitioner's staff. The recor oes not exp am how the 
beneficiary's duties as an educator of nutrition would involve interaction with patients. These letters 
suggest that the beneficiary is not a full-time director of a school. 
IV. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished herself as a 
school director 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 field. The evidence 
indicates that the beneficiary is an experienced university dean, but is not persuasive that the 
beneficiary's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field. The record also 
raises questions regarding the beneficiary'S intent to continue working in her area of expertise, nutrition 
education. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.