dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
w~~f)hg data deleted to 
arevcnt clearly unwmtd 
Office of~dminishative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
q, 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 08 073 50172 
 AUG 0 4 2009 
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. 5 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. 5 103.5 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). 
4rn)jh~k 
C-JO F. nssom 
hb 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. 5 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 he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The director also determined that the petitioner had not submitted 
clear evidence that he would continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) and that hls evidence should also be evaluated pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(4). The petitioner further states that prospective employers will not consider him for job 
offers in the United States "without petition approval or any assurance from the USCIS." 
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. 8 204.5(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 
Page 3 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on January 4, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an educator. The petitioner's range of experience includes religious studies, church 
leadership, literary studies, community activism, and cultural exchange. Regarding his plans to 
continue to work in the United States, the petitioner submitted a signed declaration stating: "I, [the 
petitioner], am going to select or seek teaching positions at local colleges and universities utilizing 
my a [sic] post doctorial degree of Education that I have experienced." The petitioner's continuation 
of his work in the United States will be further addressed below in our discussion of the evidence 
pertaining to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. 
4 204.5(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. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or intel;nationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. 
 Certificate issued by the Mayor of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania stating: "In honor of the 
visit to The City of Harrisburg . . . and in recognition of the friendship, cooperation 
and dedication to exemplary public service exhibited by [the petitioner] there is 
hereby conferred upon such person Honorary Citizenship" (1 997); 
2. 
 Citation from the City Council of Philadelphia honoring the petitioner for his 
participation in the "Trip of Friendship" (1 997); 
3. 
 Citation from the City Council of Philadelphia honoring the petitioner for his 
participation in the "Trip of Friendship" and "recognizing him as an Honorary Citizen 
of Philadelphia" (1 997); 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
4. A November 20, 1997 letter of appreciation from the Mayor of Philadelphia 
expressing thanks for the petitioner's sponsorship of a visit by a delegation of forty 
individuals from Philadelphia to Inchon, Korea; 
5. 
 Proclamation from the Mayor of Pottstown, Pennsylvania naming the petitioner an 
honorary citizen in appreciation of his sponsorship of the "Friendship Tour" (1 997); 
6. 
 Citation of Appreciation from the Mayor of Pottstown, Pennsylvania in recognition of 
the petitioner's "work in building a better understanding among the different cultures 
of the world therefore promoting peace and harmony" (1997); 
7. 
 Certificate of Appreciation issued by the Mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina thanking 
the petitioner for "outstanding contributions to the community7' (1997); 
8. 
 Prize Certificate (number 2049) reflecting that the petitioner was recognized by the 
"Society for Preparation of Foundation for Unification" for making a "contribution to 
the preparation of the foundation for unification, by doing his best to serve 
community, to unite citizens, to stabilize society, and to collect citizens' power" 
(1997); and 
9. 
 Letter of Confirmation (number 2049) congratulating the petitioner on his receipt of 
the "Prize for Preparation of Foundation for Unification" and awarding him the "title 
of Pioneer for the Unification of Fatherland" (1997). 
Items 1 through 7 reflect forms of local recognition rather than nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. With regard to items 8 and 9, 
there is no evidence demonstrating the significance of the petitioner's "Prize for Preparation of 
Foundation for Unification" and honorary title. The petitioner has not established that his prize 
(number 2049) and honorary title reflect national or international recognition for excellence in the 
field rather than institutional recognition. For example, there is no evidence showing that 
petitioner's prize and honorary title had a significant level of recobition beyond the presenting 
organization. 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 his burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case, there is no 
evidence demonstrating that items 1 through 9 are tantamount to nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzfication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
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 satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
,- Page 5 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted an October 27, 1995 "Letter of Appointment and Commission" naming him 
"Steering Director" for the "National Movement for Invitation of 2002 World Cup." In response to 
the director's request for evidence, the petitioner asserts that his membership on the Korean 
"commission for 2002 World Cup" meets this regulatory criterion. The petitioner has not established 
that his appointment to this commission equates to membership in an association in the field for which 
classification is sought. Further, there is no evidence indicating that this appointment required 
outstanding achievements, as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts. 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner holds membership in an association 
requiring outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in his field or an allied one. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that 
he 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 alliedJield of speczjcation for which classzjcation is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. 5 204.5(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. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
 For example, evaluating the work of 
accomplished professors as a member on a national panel of experts is of far greater probative value 
than evaluating the work of students. 
The petitioner submitted a December 10, 1994 "Letter of Appointment and Commission" from the 
President of the AD 2000 and Beyond Movement stating: "AD 2000 and Beyond Movement hereby 
appoint and commission [the petitioner] as a Director of Saturation Church Planting Track to expand 
AD 2000 and Beyond Movement for national and global evangelization conducted by whole 
churches in full power and effort." In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner 
asserts that his participation on the AD 2000 and Beyond Movement Committee meets this 
regulatory criterion. The content of the December 10, 1994 letter from the President of the AD 2000 
and Beyond Movement does not support the petitioner's assertion. 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." In this instance, there is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field while serving as 
director on the committee. 
 Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 158, 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). There is 
no evidence, for instance, showing the specific work judged by the petitioner, his dates of 
participation, the names of those he evaluated, their level of expertise, or documentation of his 
assessments. Without evidence establishing that the petitioner has actually participated as a judge 
and that his activities were consistent with sustained national or international acclaim, we cannot 
conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of four recommendation letters discussing his 
educational qualifications and involvement in community projects such as the "Trip of Friendship" 
project. Education and activity in one's field, however, are not necessarily indicative of original 
contributions of major significance. The record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made 
original scholarly contributions that have significantly influenced or impacted his field. 
I have known [the petitioner] in variety of capacities for several years. [The petitioner] is 
well organized, efficient, extremely competent, and has an excellent rapport with people of 
all ages. His communication skills, both written and verbal are excellent. 
[The petitioner] is a careful and creative thinker with an eye for details and a devotion to 
logic, while serves his well both in the education and outside them. 
is not only a professional, but he is also personally delightful. As I got to know [the 
petitioner] over the years, I became only more impressed by the wide range of his abilities. 
He is an accomplished educator and a scholar. 
Upon his completion of undergraduate degree for Bachelor of Art, he continued to purse his 
schooling, earning a Master of Theology, a Doctor of Arts, and finally a Doctor of Education. 
[The petitioner] has shown his strong commitment to international good relations between 
the United States of America and Republic of Korea as an active leader. [The petitioner] has 
spent considerable time outside of his full time employment. He made arrangements to 
invite over forties [sic] civic leaders every year for "Trip of Friends" to visit Korea from the 
State of Pennsylvania, by funding this project for himself. And this meaningful project still 
continues by his successor. 
This is good example of his unselfishness to involve community activities. 
 He was 
recognized and awarded an honor citizenship from the participating city's Mayors for his 
' accomplishments. 
As two years time, I have come to know [the petitioner] well in personally and his 
professionalism. 
I am very proud of his academic achievements. He has one Master degree in Theology. And 
two Doctors degrees in Arts and Education. I have no doubt that this gentleman is 
intelligent, devoted and a great asset where he is belong to. 
[The petitioner] has started a local church with a handful of people and he increased church 
membership well over 3,200 congregations upon his departure from his homeland. 
[The petitioner] has donated countless hours of his time to the community activities. He has 
also helped to implement plans and programs that will enrich the lives of those around him. 
[The petitioner's] leadership and organization skills have been invaluable to this program. 
Especially, he pioneered a special project named "Trip of Friends" for over 40's [sic] 
American civic leaders to visit Korea every year and he hnded this project by himself. 
He was awarded numerous times by accomplishing many other projects that he personally 
involved. 
It gives me great satisfaction to recommend [the petitioner] for a candidate as a category to 
posses extraordinary ability. This gentleman is highly professional in both dress and 
demeanor. I must also make note of his exceptional academic achievements. He earned one 
master degree in Theology, and two Doctors degrees in Arts and Education. 
[The petitioner] is such a passionate and prolific speaker that he needs a steady supply to 
maintain his voice. He is a great educator and a scholar from his backgrounds. 
[The petitioner's] impact has even been felt outside of his full time jobs. I have seen many 
examples of his talent and have been inspired by his delight and work habit. He is able to 
successfully complete multiple tasks with favorable results on deadline pressure. [The 
petitioner] has shown an ongoing interest in world affairs and international developments. 
He demonstrated his leadership by organizing a special project "Trip of Friends" which made 
possible that many Americans could visit to Korea ever year. 
[The petitioner] not only headed this project, he ensured it [sic] success by funding himself. 
- 
Chairman, The Puritans Spiritual Training Center, Seoul, Korea, states: 
In my capacity as Chairman of Puritan Spiritual Training Center located at Seoul, Korea I 
have worked closely with [the petitioner] for more than a decade. I am continuously 
maintain [sic] close relations with him daily or weekly basis. 
Our Teaching facilities established with four people to include [the petitioner] about 9 years 
ago. We now have more than 2 millions [sic] members. Currently, each time we conduct a 
seminar, we gather around ten thousands people to attend. While [the petitioner] was in 
Korea he dedicated a great deal to grow this teaching organization. 
In October 2006, [the petitioner] was coordinating with Puritan Spiritual Training in the 
United States and we expected to have more than 2,000 people to come to the United States 
from Korea to attend this seminar. This seminar turned out very successful. We registered 
through the State Department's Bulletin Board to announce this event. 
[The petitioner] was charged and fully responsible to perform this activity including 
advertisement through local medias-TVs, Radios, Newspapers and Interviews with them, 
accommodations, trips, airlines reservations, visa applications and transportation 
arrangements. 
We plan to conduct these yearly events at different locations around the globe. 
 [The 
petitioner] is again going to coordinate and share with teaching opportunities within our 
establishments to years come. 
After his schooling in the United States earning a master degree in Theology, two doctors 
degree in Arts and Education, he returned to his homeland and he established a special task 
named "Trip of Friends" for over 40's [sic] American all type of civic leasers [sic] could 
come to Korea to promote fhendships internationally. This still continue by his successor 
after he left Korea. 
The preceding individuals credit the petitioner with organizing the "Trip of Friends" and 
coordinating spiritual training seminars, but there is no evidence demonstrating that these 
accomplishments are tantamount to original scholarly contributions of major significance in the 
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 earned the admiration of 
his colleagues, there is no evidence establishing that specific work attributable to him equates to 
original contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate 
the extent of the petitioner's influence on other educators nationally or internationally, nor does it 
show that the scholarly field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the recommendation letters submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
regulatory criterion. 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 (Commr. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
Page 9 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. 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. 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 that one would expect of an educator who has sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
In addition to the recommendation letters, the etitioner submitted a September 1, 1989 "Letter of 
Appointment and Commission" from the Minister of Justice, appointing the 
petitioner "as a Commissioner of Inchon Probation Administration to provide offenders with a 
proper guidance and to prevent community from crimes through probation activities." The petitioner 
also submitted an April 11, 1989 letter from appointing the petitioner "as a Commissioner 
of the Namgu District, Inchon Branch of Relief and Rehabilitation Society to protect community 
from crimes and to improve the individual and public welfare through proper guidance activities." 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner asserts that the preceding letters 
from the Minister of Justice meet this regulatory criterion. The record, however, does not include 
evidence showing that the petitioner's work as a Commissioner of the Inchon Probation 
Administration and as a Commissioner of the Namgu District, Inchon Branch of Relief and 
Rehabilitation Society was tantamount to original scholarly contributions of major significance in 
the field. With regard to the brief appointment letters dated September 1, 1989 and April 1 1, 1989, 
they do not specify exactly what the petitioner's original contributions to the criminal rehabilitation 
system were, nor is there an explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major 
significance in his field. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has 
been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level 
of original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$eld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner asserts that he meets this regulatory 
criterion through his selection for televised speaking engagements produced by "Christian 
Broadcasting TV stations in Korea." A televised speaking engagement does not equate to 
"authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media." Nevertheless, the record does not include video footage or transcripts from the television 
programs on which the petitioner claims to have appeared. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Sof$ci, 22 I&N Dec. at 158, 165. 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 has authored "scholarly articles in the 
field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media." Accordingly, the petitioner has 
not established 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. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. 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. 
As discussed, the petitioner submitted letters of "Appointment and Commission" from a number of 
organizations naming him to various positions. The limited content in these brief letters is not sufficient 
to demonstrate that the petitioner's role for the organizations was leading or critical. The record lacks 
information regarding the specific nature of the petitioner's roles and how those roles differentiated him 
from the other members of the organizations. Further, there is no evidence showing that the 
organizations for whch the petitioner served had a distinguished reputation. In this case, the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the success or 
standing of the organizations to which he was appointed to a degree consistent with the meaning of 
"leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner asserts that his involvement with the 
"Trip of Friendship" meets this regulatory criterion. The petitioner states: "I was a sole sponsor and 
a financer for the 'Trip of Friendship' to seek potential problems caused by racial and cultural 
differences among mixed races in America. There were forty people on each group to travel to 
Korea funded by me." There is no evidence establishing that the "Trip of Friendship" program 
equates to an organization or establishment or that the program continued subsequent to 1997 with 
the petitioner performing in a leading or critical role. Further, while this program earned recognition 
from participating municipalities in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that its reputation extended beyond those areas. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signlJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner asserts that he "was making extreme 
high income in the nation during [his] stay in Korea." The record, however, does not include 
supporting evidence (such as payroll records or income tax forms) showing the petitioner's actual 
earnings for any specific period of time. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 158, 165. A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the 
regulation. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(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). Further, the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence showing that he has commanded a 
high salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing 
that his compensation was significantly high in relation to others in his field. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(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. 5 204.5(h)(2). Further, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner's national or international acclaim has been sustained. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Specifically, the record does not include evidence of nationally or internationally acclaimed 
achievements and recognition subsequent to the 1990s. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner asserts that his June 1, 1997 Letters 
of Appointment and Commission naming him chairman of the Korean News of Canada and the 
Korean Christian Journal of North America are comparable evidence of his extraordinary ability. 
The petitioner further states that he conducted seminars and a Puritan Spiritual Training Workshop 
in the Los Angeles area in October 2006. 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 evidence 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). Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of the regulatory criteria, the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable 
evidence. 
Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that the documentation the petitioner requests evaluation 
of as comparable evidence constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. For example, with regard to the 
petitioner's chairmanship appointments for the Korean News of Canada and the Korean Christian 
Journal of North America, the record does not include information about the petitioner's role as 
chairman, evidence showing that these publications have a distinguished reputation, or documentation 
showing that they equate to professional publications or some other form of major media. Regarding 
the petitioner's seminars and Puritan Spiritual Training Workshop, the record does not include 
contemporaneous material from the events or evidence showing that the events attracted a level of 
interest consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. The director found the petitioner 
had not established that the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) were inapplicable to his field 
and that his chairmanship appointments, seminars, and workshop were comparable to the forms of 
evidence required by the ten criteria under the aforementioned regulation. We concur with the 
director's findings. 
The director also found that the petitioner, who was admitted to the U.S. as a nonimmigrant religious 
worker in 2005, had not submitted clear evidence that he would continue to work in his area of 
expertise in the United States. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that 
the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence 
may include letter(s) fiom prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as 
contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue 
his or her work in the United States." As previously noted, the petitioner submitted a signed 
declaration in support of his Form 1-140 stating: "I, [the petitioner], am going to select or seek 
teaching positions at local colleges and universities utilizing my a [sic] post doctorial degree of 
Education that I have experienced." The content of the petitioner's brief statement does not provide 
sufficient information detailing his plans for continuing his work in the United States. For example, 
the petitioner does not specify the colleges and universities that have expressed an interest in hiring 
him for a teaching position. Moreover, according to the petitioner's Form G-325, Biographic 
Information, signed by the petitioner on December 3 1, 2007, he has been working as a pastor at a 
church fiom July 2006. Accordingly, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner's 
evidence does not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5). 
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 or 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. Nor is there clear evidence demonstrating that the petitioner will continue to work in hls area of 
expertise in the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to 
sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) 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.