dismissed EB-1A Case: Education For Visually Impaired

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.citizenshipandImmigrationServices
identifying data deleted to °/Ace a/Adminis'ra'ive AvvealsMs 2090
preventclearlyunwarranted ""®"i"""".oc20529-2090
invasionof personalprivacy U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
UC COPi services
FILE: Office: NEBRASKASERVICECENTER Date:
OCT0 7 2010
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If youbelievethelaw wasinappropriatelyappliedby usin reachingourdecision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfHea motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.
Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbefoundat8C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto the office thatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor
Motion. Thefeefor a FormI-290Bis currently$585,butwill increaseto $630onNovember23,2010.
Any appealor motionfiled on or afterNovember23,2010mustbefiled with the$630fee. Pleasebe
awarethat8 C.F.R.§ IO3.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbefiled within30daysof thedecision
thatthemotionseeksto reconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The employment-basedimmigrantvisa petition was deniedby the Director,
NebraskaServiceCenter,on July 22, 2009,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice
(AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alien of extraordinaryability in "foreign languageeducationfor the visually impairedthrough
theuseof assistivetechnology." Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerhadnot established
the requisiteextraordinaryability andfailedto submitextensivedocumentationof his sustained
nationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthe
statutethat the petitionerdemonstrate"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of his or her achievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act
and8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatan
alien can establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-time
achievement,specificallya major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof such
anaward,theregulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificevidence.8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i)
through(x). The petitionermust submit qualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten
regulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establishthebasiceligibility requirements.
On appeal,the petitionerclaimsto meetat leastthreeof the regulatorycriteria at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3).In addition,thepetitionerargues:
Thejustification for thedenialignoresthefactthatthereareveryfew teachersfor
visually impaired(TVIs) with a relevantdoctoraldegree. In MilwaukeePublic
Schools,I amtheonly TVI with a doctoraldegree.To thebestof my knowledge
I am also the only one in the stateof Wisconsin. Thereis a greatshortageof
professionalswith qualifications.
The petitioner failed to submit any documentaryevidencesupportingany of his assertions.
Going on recordwithout supportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficient for purposesof
meetingthe burdenof proof in theseproceedings.Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm.
1972)). Moreover,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2)statesthat "[e]xtraordinaryability
meansa levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohave
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." Even if we would acceptthe petitioner's
assertionsthatthereis a lackof teachersfor thevisuallyimpairedor thatthepetitioneristheonly
visually impaired teacherwith a doctoral degreein the Milwaukee Public Schoolsor in
Wisconsin,whichwe do not, suchfactorsarenot relevantto establishthe petitioner'seligibility
for this classification.Theissueof whethersimilarlytrainedworkersareavailablein theUnited
Statesis an issue under the jurisdiction of the Departmentof Labor through the alien
employmentcertificationprocess.Matterof New YorkStateDepartmentof Transportation,22
I&N Dec.215,221(Commr.1998). Instead,the petitionermustdemonstratethathe"is oneof
Page3
that smallpercentagewho haverisento thevery top of thefield of endeavor." In otherwords.
the petitionermustestablishthathe is oneof the top teachersof thevisuallyimpairedaswhole
and not limited to the restrictedareaof the MilwaukeePublic SchoolSystemor the stateof
Wisconsin.Whilethepetitioner'spossessionof adoctoraldegreeis relevantto hisqualifications
asa visually impairedteacher,wearenotpersuadedthatthepetitioner'seducationalexperience
establishesthat he "has sustainednational or internationalacclaim and that his or her
achievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise."8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).
L Law
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified
immigrantswho are aliensdescribedin any of the following subparagraphs(A)
through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.-- An alienis describedin this
subparagraphif --
(i) the alienhasextraordinaryability in the sciences,
arts,education,business,or athleticswhichhasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednationalor international
acclaim and whose achievementshave been
recognized in the field through extensive
documentation,
(ii) the alien seeksto enter the United Statesto
continueworkin theareaof extraordinaryability,and
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill
substantiallybenefitprospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S. CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalization
Service(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very highstandardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.72310l* Cong.,2d
Sess.59(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"
refersonly to thoseindividualsin that smallpercentagewho haverisento the very top of the
fieldof endeavor.Id.and8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratehisor hersustained
acclaimand the recognitionof his or her achievementsin the field. Suchacclaimmust be
establishedeither throughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(that is, a major, intemational
recognizedaward)or throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the
followingtencategoriesof evidence.
Page4
(i) Documentationof the alien's receiptof lessernationallyor internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefieldof endeavor;
(ii) Documentationof thealien'smembershipin associationsin thefield for which
classificationis sought,which requireoutstandingachievementsof theirmembers,
asjudged by recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor
fields;
(iii) Publishedmaterialaboutthealienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor
othermajormedia,relatingto thealien'sworkin thefield for whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshallincludethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,and
anynecessarytranslation;
(iv) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor onapanel,asajudge
of the work of othersin the sameor an allied field of specializationfor which
classificationis sought;
(v) Evidenceof thealien'soriginalscientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield;
(vi) Evidenceof the alien's authorshipof scholarlyarticles in the field, in
professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia;
(vii) Evidenceof thedisplayof thealien'swork in thefield atartisticexhibitionsor
showcases;
(viii) Evidencethat the alien has performedin a leadingor critical role for
organizationsor establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation;
(ix) Evidencethatthealienhascommandedahighsalaryor othersignificantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationtoothersin thefield;or
(x) Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,asshownbyboxoffice
receiptsor record,cassette,compactdisk,or videosales.
In 2010,the U.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinth Circuit(NinthCircuit) reviewedthedenialof a
petitionfiledunderthisclassification.Kazarianv.USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).Although
the courtupheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meetagivenevidentiarycriterion.' With respectto thecriteria
at 8 C.F.R.§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhileUSCISmayhaveraised
legitimateconcernsaboutthe significanceof the evidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,
thoseconcernsshouldhavebeenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id.
Specifically,thecourtstatedthattheAAO hadunilaterallyimposednovel,substantive,or evidentiaryrequirements
beyondthosesetforth in theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page5
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO'sevaluationrestedonanimproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthe typesof evidenceprovided(which the AAO did)," and if the
petitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionisthattheapplicanthasfailed
to satisfy the regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at
1122(citingto8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).Thecourtalsoexplainedthe"final meritsdetermination"as
thecorollarytothisprocedure:
If a petitionerhassubmittedtherequisiteevidence,USCISdetermineswhetherthe
evidencedemonstratesbotha"levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis one
of thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof the[ir] fieldof endeavor,"
8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2),and"that the alienhassustainednationalor international
acclaimand that his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of
expertise."8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Only alienswhoseachievementshavegarnered
"sustainednational or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary
ability" visa.8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
Id. at 1119.
Thus,Kazarian setsforth a two-partapproachwherethe evidenceis first countedand then
consideredin thecontextof afinal meritsdetermination.In reviewingServiceCenterdecisions,the
AAO will applythetestsetforth in Kazarian. As theAAO maintainsdenovoreview.theAAO
will conductanewanalysisif thedirectorreachedhisor herconclusionbyusingaone-stepanalysis
ratherthanthetwo-stepanalysisdictatedby theKazariancourt. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v.
UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),aff'd,345F.3d683(9* Cir. 2003):
seealso Soltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts
appellatereview on a de novobasis).
II. Translations
While not addressedby the directorin his decision,the recordof proceedingreflectsthat the
petitionersubmittednumerousnon-certifiedEnglishlanguagetranslationsand foreign language
documentswithout any Englishlanguagetranslations.The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)
providesin pertinentpart:
(3) Translations. Any documentcontainingforeign languagesubmittedto USCIS
shallbe accompaniedby a full Englishlanguagetranslationwhich the translator
hascertifiedascompleteandaccurate.andby thetranslator'scertificationthathe
or sheis competentto translatefrom theforeignlanguageintoEnglish.
Becausethepetitionerfailedto complywith theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§103.2(b)(3).theAAO
cannot determinewhether the evidencesupportsthe petitioner'sclaims. Accordingly, the
evidenceis notprobativeandwill notbeaccordedanyweightin thisproceeding.
Page6
IH. Analysis
A. EvidentiaryCriteria
This petition, filed on July 23.. 2008, seeksto classify the petitioner as an alien with
extraordinaryability as a visually impairedteacher. The petitionerhas submittedevidence
pertainingto thefollowing criteriaunder8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).2
Evidenceof the alien's original scientific,scholarly,artistic. athletic. or business-
relatedcontributionsof a majorsignificancein thefield
At the time of the original filing of the petition,counselclaimedthe petitioner'seligibility for
thiscriterionby stating:
[Thepetitioner's]originalcontributionsto thefield of assistivetechnologyfor the
visually impairedis that he hasdevelopedwaysto maketechnologyhelp these
studentsnot only academically, but socially as well. [The petitioner's] work
demonstratesthat becausebody languageand facial expressionsplay such an
important part in communicationblind studentsare at a disadvantagein
communicatingandthus in forming socialrelationships.In responseto this he
hasusedtechnologiessuchas emotionsto help theselearners. Emoticonsare
computericonswhich showfeelings,suchassmileyfaces. Theycanbeusedin
computerconversationsto replacebody language. By having both blind and
sighted studentsconduct computerconversationsusing such emoticonsblind
studentsareputonanequalplayingfieldwith sightedstudents.
Much of [the petitioner's] work is gearedtoward inclusion of blind students
throughtechnologywhich usesother senses,suchas touch and hearing. For
examplehe hasusedkeyboardoverlayswhich allow studentsto usethe senseof
touchto communicate.He proposesusingsoundsto describeplacesto students.
Whenbothvisuallyimpairedandsightedstudentsjoin in chatstogetherwhichuse
sensesotherthansightto communicateblindstudentscanparticipateequally.
In addition,thepetitionersubmittedlettersof recommendation.Weciterepresentativeexamples
here:
stated:
Although I havevery limited experiencewith visually impairedmodernforeign
languagelearners,[the petitioner's}publicationsparticularlyresonatedwith me
becauseI have long had a specialistinterestin the potentialof computer
technologyasa curriculumdeliverymediumfor studentswith specialeducational
Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimto meetor submitevidencerelatingto thecriterianotdiscussedinthisdecision.
Page7
needs. I am awarethathe hassubmittedsuccessfulMastersandDoctoraltheses
to the Universityof Lodz in Poland.makingoriginalcontributionsto scholarship
in thefield of computer-basedvisuallyimpairedforeignlanguagelearning.
stated:
[The petitioner]wasa uniqueadditionto the Computer[SpecialInterestGroup]
presentinghisresearchandexperience-basedapproachto usingcomputerassisted
instruction to students with visual impairments. IATEFL [International
Associationof Teachersof Englishasa ForeignLanguage]Polandwasfortunate
to havehim asa memberbecausehe is oneof very few specialistsin the world
who hasdoneresearchin theeffectsof computerassistedinstructionon language
learningandsocialinclusionof studentswith visualimpairments.
stated:
To befrankly honest,we havevery few individualsin thenationwith the sorely
neededskills that[thepetitioner]possesses.[Thepetitioner's]work in theareaof
provision of high quality educationalservicesfor blind youngstersis a major
contributionto thewelfareof thoseyoungsters.
stated:
[The petitioner's] (2002) researchis unique in that it encouragesthe use of
assistivetechnologyto expandanddeepenthesocialconnectionof thesepatients,
or students.Thatis, his researchclarifiesmethodsthatgo beyondthatof merely
usingthetechnologyto accesswrittenmaterialsandacquireacademicskills.
Although the following point is obviousto practitionersof neuropsychology,
clinical psychology,and schoolpsychology,it may not be so to thosein other
fields. [The petitioner's] researchand approach(2006) to the applicationof
assistivetechnologyfor patientswith visual impairmentsalso has significant
implications for patients with other disabilities, e.g., dyslexia, autism, and
traumaticbrain injury.
, stated:
Theapplicantis well-publishedandis a notedinternationalauthorityon assistive
technology for personswho are visually impaired/blind. It was a distinct
privilege and honor being his professorand advisor while he was here at
[Universityof Louisville]. I anticipategreatthingsfrom him thatwill ultimately
benefitmanyhundredsof personswith visualdisabilities.
stated:
Page8
[The petitioner] demonstratesoutstandingknowledgeof this technology. In
addition,[the petitioner]hasa uniqueability to teachtheseskills in a practical,
hands-onfashion,to both visually impairedand sightedpeople. I, and other
instructors at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, have invited [the
petitioner] as a guest lecturer for studentspursuing certification in special
education,to makethesestudentsawareof thevastarrayof technologicaldevices
available to enhancethe educationand quality of life for individuals with
disabilities. Also, [thepetitioner]currentlyspendsonemorningperweekin my
resourceroom,teachingmyyoung,visuallyimpairedstudentstheskillsnecessary
to effectively utilize the assistivetechnologydevicesavailablefor the visually
impaired. Theseskills areabsolutelynecessaryif thestudentsareto pursuepost-
secondaryeducationandemployment.
Furthermore,thepetitionersubmittedthefollowing documentation:
1. Screenshotsfrom the websitewww.schools.beeta.oraukreflecting that
refersto thepetitioneras"a prolific researcherin the field
of computer-assistedlan gelearningfor thevisuallyimpaired";
2. An emailfrom referring toanarticleby the
petitioner;
3. A documententitled, "An Analysis of a Concordancer;'Wordsmith'"
reflectingthatthepetitioner'sarticleis referencedfor theassignment;
4. Documentationfrom
reflecting that 10 of the
petitioner'spaperswerereferencedunderthevisualimpairmentsection;
5. A a er entitled,
" byM reflectingthatthepetitioner'sarticlewascitedin
thepaper;and
6. A paperentitled,
by , reflecting that the petitioner's article was
citedin thepaper.
In responseto the director's requestfor evidence,the petitioner submittedthe following
documentation:
A. Screenshotfrom GoogleScholarreflectingthatthe petitioner'swork was
citedapproximately8 timesby others;
B. A paper entitled,
' reflectin th etitioner'swork wascitedonetime;and
C. A letterfrom
statingthat the petitionercontributedto the AssessingStudent
Needfor AssistiveTechnology(ASNAP)Manualandthat it wouldbe
postedonline"attheendof June2009."
Page9
In thedirector'sdecision,hefoundthatthepetitioner'sdocumentaryevidencefailedto establish
eligibility for this criterion. On appeal,thepetitionerreiteratesthe documentationlistedabove
andsubmittedthefollowing additionaldocumentation:
i. An articleentitled
reflectingthat the petitioner'swork was
citedonetime in thearticle;
ii. A partial documentreflectingthat oneof the petitioner'spublicationsis
recommendedfor a courseat JohnsHopkinsUniversity(JHU) in Spring
2008;and
iii. An uncertified and aartial translation of an article entitled,
reflectingthat
the petitioner's work wascitedonetime in thearticle.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)requires"[e]videnceof the
alien's original scientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-relatedcontributionsof major
significance in the field." In compliance with Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain
languageof theregulatorycriteria.596F.3dat 1121.Here,theevidencemustbereviewedto see
whetherit risesto the level of original scholarly-related"contributionsof majorsignificancem
thefield."
In this case,while the recommendationletterspraisethe petitionerfor his work in assistive
technologyfor the visually impaired,they fail to indicatethat his contributionsare of maior
significanceto the field. The lettersprovide only generalstatementswithout offering any
specificinformationto establishhow the petitioner'swork hasbeenof majorsignificance.For
example, claimedthat the petitioner'smastersanddoctoraltheseswereoriginal
contributionsto the field. However, failed indicate how they were original
contributionsandhowtheyhaveimpactedthefield asawholeandnot limitedto thepetitioner's
personaleducationalachievements.In fact, failed to statethe name,nature,and
findings of the petitioner'stheses. We are not persuadedthat merely completingthesesfor
highereducationalrequirements,withoutdetailinghowthosetheseshaveinfluencedthe field as
a whole, is sufficient to establisheligibility for this requirement.
Similarly, broadlyindicatedthatthepetitionercontributed"his researchand
experience-basedapproach"without offering any specificexamples. Furthermore,
failedto indicateanyevidenceof thepetitioner'soriginalcontributionsof majorsignificanceto
the field. simply indicatedthat IATEFL "was fortunateto havehim as a
member"without offering any evidenceof the etitioner'scontributionsoutsideof IATEFL
Poland. Finally, we arenot persuadedby claim thatthe petitioner"is oneof very
few specialistsin the world" demonstratesthatthepetitionerhasmadeoriginal contributionsof
majorsignificance.
Page10
Moreover generallystatedthat the petitioner'swork "is a major
contributionto the welfareof thoseyoungsters."However, failed to identify
any contributionmadeb the etitioner to the field beyondthe studentswith whom he has
worked. While also indicatedthat the field is lackingotherswho sharethe
petitioner's skills, failed to explain how the petitioner'sskills are original
contributionsof major significanceto the field. Merely having a diverseskill set is not a
contributionof major significancein and of itself. Rather,the recordmustbe supportedby
evidencethat the petitioner has already usedthose unique skills to impact the field at a
significantlevelin anoriginalway.
Furthermore,while describedthe etitioner'swork asuniqueand
statedthat the petitioner's"researchclarifies methods," failed to specifically
indicate the petitioner's researchor methodsand to describehow they have significantly
influencedor impactedthefield. In addition alsoindicatedthatthepetitioner's
researchand approach"has significant implicationsfor atientswith other disabilities,e.g.,
dyslexia, autism,and traumaticbrain injury," however, failed explain any
presentimpactthe petitioner's work hashadin theseareas.
In addition, although claimed that the petitioner "is a noted
internationalauthorityon assistivetechnologyfor personswhoarevisuallyimpaired/blind,"
failed to explain how the petitioner became a noted international authority.
Notwithstanding, failed indicateany original contributionsof majorsignificanceto
the field madeby the petitioner. Instead generallyassertsthat he anticipatesgreat
thingsfrom the petitioner"that will ultimatelybenefitmanyhundredsof persons." Eligibility
mustbeestablishedat thetime of filing. 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12); MatterofKatigbak, 14
I&N Dec.45, 49 (Regl.Commr.1971).A petitioncannotbeapprovedat a futuredateafterthe
petitionerbecomeseligible undera newsetof facts. Matter of/zummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169,175
(Comm'r. 1998). Thatdecisionfurtherprovides,citing MatterofBardoui//e, 18I&N Dec. 114
(BIA 1981),thatwe cannot"considerfactsthatcomeinto beingonly subsequentto thefiling of
a petition." Id. at 176. A petitionercannotfile a petitionunderthis classificationbasedon the
expectationof futureeligibility. Theassertionthatthepetitioner'swork is likely to beinfluential
is not adequateto establishthathis findingsarealreadyrecognizedasmajorcontributionsin the
field. While raisesthepetitioner,the factremainsthatanymeasurableimpactthat
resultsfrom the petitioner's researchwill likely occurin the future.
Finally, it is clear from letter that sheis impressed th etitioner's
"uniqueability" to teachvisually impairedandsightedpeople. However, failedto
identify any original contributionsof major significanceto the field. While
describedthe petitioner'sdedicationto teachinghervisuallyimpairedstudentsat the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, failed to indicatehow thepetitioner'scontributionshave
impactedthefield outsideof thelimitedarenaof herstudentsattheuniversity.
While thosefamiliar with the petitioner'swork generallydescribeit as"unique," "successful,"
and"major," the letterscontaingeneralstatementsthat lack specificdetailsto demonstratethat
PageI l
the petitioner'swork is of major significance.This regulatorycriterion not only requiresthe
petitionerto makeoriginal contributions,but alsorequiresthosecontributionsto besignificant.
We arenot persuadedby vague,solicitedlettersthat simply repeatthe regulatorylanguagebut
do not explain how the petitioner'scontributionshavealreadyinfluencedthe field. Merely
repeatingthe languageof the statuteor regulationsdoesnot satisfythe petitioner'sburdenof
prooff The lack of supportingdocumentaryevidencegivesthe AAO no basisto gaugethe
significanceof thepetitioner'spresentcontributions.
USCISmay,in its discretion,useasadvisoryopinionstatementssubmittedasexperttestimony.
SeeMatterof Caroninternational.19I&N Dec.791,795(Commr.1988). However,USCISis
ultimatelyresponsiblefor makingthe final determinationregardinganalien'seligibility for the
benefitsought.Id Thesubmissionof lettersof supportfromthepetitioner'spersonalcontactsis
not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmay evaluatethe contentof thoselettersasto
whetherthey supportthe alien's eligibility. Seeid at 795. Thus,the contentof the writers'
statementsand how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important
considerations. Even when written by independentexperts, letters solicited by an alien in
supportof an immigration petition areof lessweight thanpreexisting,independentevidenceof
original contributionsof major significance.
Finally, regardingthe petitioner'swork cited, referenced,or mentionedby others,we are not
persuadedthat suchevidenceis reflectiveof the significanceof his work in the field. For
example,regardingitem 1, while the petitioner'swork is referencedin responseto a question
regardingresearchusinginformationandcommunicationtechnology,we arenot persuadedthat
beingreferencedona websitedemonstratesthatthepetitioner'scontributionshavebeenof major
significanceto the field. In fact, the website fails to describethe petitioner's original
contributionsor indicatethesignificanceor impactof thecontributionsto thefield. Wenotethat
there are variouswebsitesrangingfrom educationalto entertainmentpurposes. We are not
persuadedthat internationalaccessibilityby itself is a realisticindicatorof whetherinformation
on a website is sufficient evidenceto be consideredas an original contribution of major
significanceto the field. Similarly, regardingitem 2, theemailmerelyrefersto the petitioner's
work asa possibleinterestfor theJapaneseschool. While theemailreflectssomeinterestin the
petitioner'swork, it faHsfar shortin establishingthathiswork hasbeenof majorsignificanceto
the field andnot limited to the personalopinionof Likewise,regardingitems3
andii, the documentaryevidencereflectsthat the petitioner'swork is referencedaspart of an
assignmentandcourse. Specifically,whenreviewingthepartialJHU coursematerial,it appears
thatthereareat least100otherrecommendedreadingsfor thecourse.Wearenotpersuadedthat
beingreferencedin a courseassignmentor beingrecommendedfor a readingis demonstrativeof
themajorsignificanceof thepetitioner'swork.
Regardingthe remainingitems,we do not find that suchminimal citationsor referencesto the
petitioner'swork demonstratethatit hasbeensignificantlyinfluentialto his field. Again,while
FedinBros.Co.,Ltd.v.Sava,724F.Supp.I 103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),affd, 905F.2d41(2d.Cir. 1990);Aryr
Associates,Inc.v.Meissner,1997WL I88942at*5(S.D.N.Y.).
PageI2
the items reflect someinterest,such evidenceis not sufficient to establishthat the petitioner's
work hasbeenwidely usedor hassignificantlyimpactedhis field to beconsideredasoriginal
contributionsof major significance. A review of the articlesand papersdo not reflect, for
example,that they are aboutor discussin-depththe petitioner'swork so as to establishthe
significanceof his work to the field. In addition,we notethatregardingitem C, the letterfrom
indicatesthe ASNAP Manualwould be postedonline "at the endof June2009."
Eligibility mustbe establishedat thetimeof filing. 8 C.F.R.§§103.2(b)(1),(12): Matterof
Katighak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; Matter of Izummi,22 I&N Dec. at 175;Matter of Bardouille, 18
I&N Dec. at 114. Finally, we note that the petitioner failed to submit a full and certified
translationfor item iii. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).
Without additional, specific evidenceshowingthat the petitioner'swork has beenoriginal,
unusuallyinfluential,or hasotherwiserisento the level of contributionsof majorsignificance,
wecannotconcludethathemeetsthiscriterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceofthe alien's authorshipof scholarly articles in thefield, in professional
or majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.
In the director's decision,althoughhe found that the petitionerauthoredscholarlyarticles in the
field, hefoundthatthepetitionerfailedto establisheligibility for thiscriterionasthepetitioner's
work was not cited extensivelyby others. The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi)requires"[e]videnceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin the field,
in professionalor major tradepublicationsor othermajor media." Pursuantto Kazarian,596
F.3dat 1122,thepetitionersubmittedsufficientdocumentationestablishingthathemeetstheplain
languageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv).Therefore.wewithdrawthefindingsof the
directorfor thiscriterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerestablishedthathemeetstheplainlanguageof thiscriterion.
Evidencethatthealienhasperformedin a leadingor critical rolefor organizations
or establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
At the time of the original filing of the petition,counselclaimedthe petitioner'seligibility for
this criterionbasedon serving"as a presenterat manynationalandinternationalconventionsof
someof themosthighly regardedorganizationsin thefield of specialeducation,"suchas:
1. InternationalCouncil for Educationof Peoplewith Visual Impairments
(ICEVI);
2. AssistiveTechnologyIndustryAssociation(ATIA); and
3. IATEFL.
Thepetitionersubmittedthefollowing documentation:
Page13
A. Evidencefrom the 12thICEVI World Conferencein July 2006reflecting
thatthepetitioner'spaperwaspresentedattheconference;
B. Evidencefrom theATIA 2006Conferencein January2006reflectingthat
thepetitionerwasa speakerattheconference;
C. Evidencefrom theICEVI EuropeanConferencein August2005reflecting
thatthepetitionerwasa speakerattheconference;
D. Evidencefrom theATIA 2007Conferencein January2008reflectingthat
thepetitionerwasa speakerattheconference;
E. Evidencefrom the Vision AwarenessDay for Educatorsand Parentsof
Visually Impaired Students in September2007 reflecting that the
petitionerwasa speakerfor theevent;
F. Evidence from the 11* ICEVI World Conferencein August 2002
reflecting that thepetitionercontributedto theconference;
G. Evidencefrom the Third Workshopon Training of Teachersof the
Visually Impairedin Europeon an unidentifieddatereflectingthat the
petitionerservedasthereporterfor theworkshop;and
H. Evidencefrom the ICEVI EuropeanConferencein July 2000reflecting
thatthepetitionerparticipatedattheconference.
In responseto the director's requestfor evidence,the petitioner submittedthe following
documentation:
i. A letter from reflecting that the petitioner lead a
workshopby the WisconsinAssistiveTechnologyInitiative (WATI) in
March2008:
ii. An uncertifiedtranslationof a letterfrom
reflecting that the petitioner participated at the 11* BOBCATSSS
Symposiumin January2003;
iii. An email, datedMarch25, 2009,from reflectingthat he
enjoyedthepetitioner'sCSUNpresentation;and
iv. An email,datedMay 26,2009.from requestingthepetitioner
to beapresenteratthe2009ATIA Conferencein December2009.
In the director'sdecision,he foundthatthepetitionerfailed to establishthat heperformedin a
leadingor critical role. Onappealthepetitionerargues:
The decisionstatesthat my presentationsat majorprofessionalconferencesand
conventionsaremerely"important"but not "critical or leading." As indicatedin
the affidavit submittedwith the additionalevidenceonly a small percentageof
papersareacceptedto bepresentedat sucheventsasICEVI conferences,ATIA,
or CSUN conferencesthat are attendedby thousandsof participants. It means
that only leading scholars and inventors are given the floor to present. The
informal exchangeof e-mail messagesbetween and me shows
Page14
how essentialandcritical my researchis. I wasapproachedby him andaskedto
providehim with my presentationsothat he canshareit with his colleaguesof
Great Britain (see additional evidence). also expressedhis
appreciationof myopinionin aprofessionalmatter(seeadditionalevidence).
In addition,the petitionersubmitteda letter from reflectingthat the petitioner
participatedat "the nationalconferenceon 'The role of librariesin the literacyeducationand
upbringingin thefamiliesof peoplewith disabilities"in September2002/
Theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)requires"[e]videncethatthe
alienhasperformedin a leadingor cri/ical role for organizationsor establishmentsthathavea
distinguishedreputation[emphasisadded]." In general,a leadingroleis evidencedfromtherole
itself,anda critical roleis onein whichthealienwasresponsiblefor the successor standingof
the organizationor establishment.Basedon the submitteddocumentaryevidencelistedabove,
we arenot persuadedthatthepetitioner'sspeakingandparticipationat variousconferencesand
workshopsdemonstratesthat he performedin a leadingor critical role. The documentation
submittedby the petitioner is simply reflective of the petitioner'sparticipationat numerous
events.Thepetitionerfailedto submitsufficientdocumentaryevidencethatis demonstrativeof
a leadingor critical role. The recordof proceedingis absentevidencethat distinguishedthe
petitionerfrom theotherparticipantsor speakersattheconferencesor workshops.Forexample,
regardingitem A, therewereat least 12otherpaperspresentedat the conference.Moreover,
regardingitem C, therewereat least75otherspeakersandpresentationsattheconference.The
petitionerfailedto explain,for example,howhis roleasa reporterfor item G distinguishedhim
from thetwo chairpersonsand 11participants.
Furthermore,the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)also requiresthat the petitioner's
leading or critical role be "for organizationsor establishmentsthat have a distinguished
reputation." While the recordcontainsgeneralbackgroundinformationfrom the respective
websitesof ATIA, ICEVI, and IATEFL, the petitionerfailed to submitindependent,objective
evidenceestablishingthedistinguishedreputationsof theseorganizations.5Thepetitionerfailedto
submitanydocumentaryevidenceregardingWATI, BOBCATSSS,or CSUNso asto establish
theirdistinguishedreputations.
As this criterion specificallyrequiresthe petitionerto submitevidencedemonstratingthat he
performed in a leading or critical role, the petitioner'ssubmissionof documentaryevidencethat
merely reflects that he participatedor spokeat conferencesor workshopsis insufficientto
demonstrateeligibility for this criterion. In this case,the documentationsubmittedby the
petitionerdoesnot establishthat he was responsiblefor the successor standingto a degree
4 We note that the petitionerwas the certified translatorfor the letter. The petitionerfailed to submitan
independent,objectivetranslationof theletter.
While the record containsbackgroundinformationregardingIATEFL and counselclaimedthe petitioner's
eligibility basedon hisrole with IATEFL, therecordcontainsno documentaryevidenceregardingthepetitioner's
role with IATEFL
Page15
consistentwith the meaningof "leadingor critical role" pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We note that regardingitems iii - iv, the documentationreflectsevents
occurringafterthe filing of thepetition. Eligibility mustbe establishedat the time of filing. 8
C.F.R.§§103.2(b)(1),(12);MatterofKatigbak,14I&N Dec.at49;Matterof Izummi,22 l&N
Dec.at 175;MatterofBardouille, 18I&N Dec.at 114.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidencethat the alien has commandeda high salary or other sigmficantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationtoothersin thefield.
At the time of the original filing of the etition, counselclaimedthe petitioner'seligibility for
this criterion basedon a letter from
who statedthatthepetitioner"is atthetop of thesalaryschedule
basedonhislevelof education(doctorate)andyearsof experience."
In responseto thedirector'srequestfor evidence,counselstatedthat"[s]ince [thepetitioner]has
beenteaching13yearshe is paid$66,773peryearunderthe salaryschedule."In addition,the
petitionersubmittedthefollowing documentation:
1. A letterfrom whostatedthat"[t]he salaryscheduleis based
onyearsof teachingexperienceandlevelof education";
2. 2008- 2009TeacherSalarySchedule;
3. FormW-2 WageandTax Statement2007reflectingthepetitioner'swages
of $68,089;and
4. Screenshotsfrom www.payscale.comreflectingmediansalaryfor teachers
of visually impairedstudents.
In thedirector'sdecision,hefoundthatthepetitioner'sdocumentaryevidencefailed to establish
eligibility for this criterion. Onappeal,thepetitionerargues:
Thedecisionappearsto disregardthecomparisonof my paywith thenationwide
pay from the tablefrom payscale.com(seeadditionalevidence). It is clearthat
my payis higherthan[the]averageof apersonwith similaror evenmoreyearsof
teachingexperience.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix)requires"[e]videncethatthe
alienhascommandedahighsalaryor othersignificantlyhighremunerationfor services,in relation
to othersin thefield [emphasisadded]."Ascitedabove,thepetitioner'sFormW-2reflectsthathe
earned$68,089for 2007. Accordingto the screenshotscited in item 4, the medianwagefor
teachersof thevisuallyimpairedin theUnitedStatesis $42,729for individualswith between5to 9
yearsof experienceand$59,500for individualswith 20yearsor morewith experience.However,
medianwagestatisticsdo not meettheplain languageof the regulation. Rather,the petitioner
must demonstratethat his salaryis significantlyhigh not just higher than the averageor the
Page16
median. Merelyearningabovethemedianwagein hisfield is insutTicient.We note,accordingto item
2.thatthepetitioner'ssalaryis not evenatthetop of hislocalarea.
Moreover,while we do not disputethestatisticalinformationfrom www.payscale.com,we note
thatthestatisticsarebasedonthesalariesof only 23individuals. Wearenotpersuadedthatsuch
salariesfrom a minimal pool of individualsrepresentcrediblestatisticaldatawhencomparing
the petitioner'ssalaryto the mediansalaries"in relationto othersin the field." The petitioner
failed to submit sufñeient documentaryevidenceestablishingthat his salary is high when
comparedto othersin his field.
Accordingly, thepetitionerfailed to establishthathemeetsthis criterion.
B. Final Merits Determination
In accordancewith theKazarianopinion,wemustnextconducta final meritsdeterminationthat
considersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror notthepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(1)
a "level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisen
to thevery top of the[ir] field of endeavor,"8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2);and(2) "that the alien has
sustainednational or international acclaim and that his or her achievementshave been
recognizedin the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i),and 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3). Seealso Kazarian,596 F.3d at I115. The
petitionermettheplain languagefor oneof thecriteria,in whichat leastthreearerequiredunder
the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case,many of the deficienciesin the
documentationsubmittedby the petitioner have already been addressedin our preceding
discussionof theregulatorycriteriaat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).
In evaluatingour final merits determination,we must look at the totality of the evidenceto
concludethepetitioner'seligibility pursuantto section201(b)(1)(A)of theAct. In this case,the
recordof proceedingreflectsthat the petitionerhasgarneredminimal attentionregardinghis
work in the field. However,theaccomplishmentsof thepetitionerfall farshortof establishingthat
he"is oneof that smallpercentagewho haverisento thevery top of thefield of endeavor"and
that he "hassustainednationalor internationalacclaimandthat his or her achievementshave
beenrecognizedin thefieldof expertise."See8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2),section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of
theAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i),and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)providesthat"[a] petitionfor analienof extraordinary
ability mustbe accompaniedby evidencethatthe alien hassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthat his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise." The
petitioner'sevidencemust be evaluatedin termsof theserequirements.The weight given to
evidencesubmittedto fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3),therefore,dependson the
extentto which suchevidencedemonstrates,reflects,or is consistentwith sustainednationalor
internationalacclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary
standardwould not be consistentwith the regulatorydefinitionof "extraordinaryability" as"a
Page17
level of expertiseindicating that the individual is oneof that small percentagewho haverisen to
theverytopof thefield of endeavor."8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Whilethepetitionerestablishedeligibility for thescholarlyarticlescriterionundertheregulation
at 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi),wenotethatthepetitionersubmittedthefollowing documentation:
1. An articleentitled
2. An article entitled
October/November
2006;
3. An articleentitled,
January/February2006;
4. A Jacerentitled
www.icevi.oru, unidentifieddate;
5. unidentifieddate;
6. A paperentitled,
unidentifiedpublication, unidentifieddate;
7. A paperentitled,
unidentifiedpublication,August2005;
8. A documententitled,
unidentifieddate;
9. EightdocumentswithoutanyEnglishlanguagetranslations;and
10. An emailof a synopsisof a non-translatedarticleentitled,
Rehabilitationand Disability, Accepted
for publicationin 2009.
While items 1 - 3 reflect that the petitionerhasauthoredscholarlyarticlesin professionalor
major tradepublications,the recorddoesnot establishthat papersor documentswere ever
published.Regardingitems4 and5, it appearsthatthearticleswerepostedon ICEVI's website.
In today'sworld, manyorganizationspostdocumentationandinformationon the Internet. To
ignorethisrealitywouldbeto renderthe"majormedia"requirementmeaningless.However,we
are not persuadedthat internationalaccessibilityby itself is a realistic indicatorof whethera
given websiteis "major media." The petitionerhasnot demonstratedthat www.icevi.oreis
consideredasmajormedia. Regardingitems6 and7,thepapersappearto bepresentationsmade
atconferencesby thepetitionerbut fail to reflectthattheywereeverpublished.Regardingitem
8, thedocumentappearsto bea chapterfor a book,but thepetitionerfailedto indicatethebook
in whichthechapterwaspublished,if publishedatall. Regardingitem9, thepetitionerfailedto
submitany Englishlanguagetranslationpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3).
Regardingitem 10,besidesthe fact thatpetitionerfailed to submita full andcertified English
Page18
translation,asthereis no indicationthatthearticlewaspublishedatthetime of the filing of the
petition,it cannotberelieduponto establisheligibility. 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);Matterof
Katigbak, 14 1&N Dec. at 49; Matter of hummi, 22 l&N Dec. at 175;Matter of Bardouille, 18
I&N Dec.at 114.
Similarly, the petitioner claimed his original contributionsof major significanceunder the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)basedin parton documentaryevidencereflectingthathis
publishedmaterialwascitedapproximatelyeighttimesby others. Althoughthe petitionermet
the plain languageof the scholarly articles criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi)throughhisauthorshipof threescholarlyarticles,hehasnotestablishedthatthe
publicationof sucharticlesdemonstratesa level of expertiseindicatingthat he is amongthat
small percentagewho have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(2). As authoringscholarlyarticlesis inherentto researchand education.we will
evaluateacitationhistoryor otherevidenceof theimpactof thepetitioner'sarticlesto determine
the impactandrecognitionhis work hashadon the field andwhethersuchinfluencehasbeen
sustained.Forexample,numerousindependentcitationsfor anarticleauthoredby thepetitioner
would providesolid evidencethathiswork hasbeenrecognizedandthatotherresearchershave
beeninfluencedby his work. Suchan analysisat the final merits determinationstageis
appropriatepursuantto Kazarian,596F.3dat 1122.Ontheotherhand.few or nocitationsof an
articleauthoredby the petitionermay indicatethat his work hasgonelargelyunnoticedby his
field. As previouslyindicated,the petitionerclaimsthathis work hasbeenindependentlycited
eighttimes. While thesecitationsdemonstratesomeinterestin hispublishedandpresentedwork,
theyarenot sufficientto demonstratethathisarticleshaveattracteda levelof interestin hisfield
commensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaim at the very top of his field.
Similarly, while the petitioner submitted some documentationreflecting his work being
mentionedor referredto by othersin his field, it falls far short in demonstratingnationalor
internationalrecognition.
Furthermore,it mustbeemphasizedthatthefavorableopinionsof expertsin thefield, while not
without evidentiaryweight, are not a solid basisfor a successfulextraordinaryability claim.
Unusual in its specificity, section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act clearly requires "extensive
documentation"of thealien'sachievements.Again,USCISmay.,in its discretion,useasadvisory
opinionsstatementssubmittedasexperttestimony.SeeMatter of CaronInternational,19I&N
Dec. at 795. However,USCIS is ultimately responsiblefor making the final determination
regardinganalien'seligibility for the benefitsought.Id. Thesubmissionof lettersfrom experts
supportingthe petition is not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCIS may evaluatethe
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796.
Thus, the contentof the experts' statementsand how they becameawareof the petitioner's
reputationareimportantconsiderations.Here,manyof theexpertsarepersonallyacquaintedwith
thepetitioner,andsomehaveworkedwith him ascolleaguesor advisors.Evenwhenwritten by
independentexperts,letterssolicitedby analienin supportof an immigrantpetitionareof less
weight than preexisting,independentevidenceof original contributionsof major significance
thatonewouldexpectof ateacherwhohassustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Page19
Regardingthe petitioner'ssalary,wenotethatwhileheclaimsthathis salaryis high comparedto
themediansalaryin hisfield,hissalaryisnotbaseduponhisaccomplishmentsor recognitionin the
field, rather,hissalaryis basedupona payscalederivedfrom a combinationof yearsworkedand
degreesearned.Moreover.aspreviouslynoted,thepetitionerhasnotevenreachedto topof thepay
scalefor hislocalarea.Suchfactsarenotindicativeof someoneatthetopof thetield.
Finally, we cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive
documentation"of his sustainednationalor internationalacclaim. Seesection203(b)(1)(A)of
theAct. Thecommentaryfor theproposedregulationsimplementingsection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the
Act providethatthe"intentof Congressthata veryhighstandardbesetfor aliensof extraordinary
ability is reflectedin this regulationby requiring the petitionerto presentmore extensive
documentationthanthat required"for lesserclassifications.56 Fed.Reg.30703,30704(July 5,
1991). In this case,thepetitionerclaimedeligibility for theleadingor criticalrolecriterionunder
theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)basedondocumentaryevidencereflectinghisspeaking
or participatingat conferencesand workshops. However,the petitioner failed to submit
documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat his speakingandparticipatingwereleadingor critical
roles to organizationsor establishmentswith distinguishedreputations. Likewise, while the
petitioner claimed eligibility for the high salary criterion at the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(ix),thepetitionerbasedhiscomparisonof salaryto alimitedpoolof medianwages.
Thepetitionerfailedto submitevidencedemonstratingthathe"is oneof thatsmallpercentagewho
haverisento theverytopof thefield." In addition,thepetitionerhasnotdemonstratedhis"career
of acclaimedworkin thefield" ascontemplatedby Congress.H.R.Rep.No. 101-723,59(Sept.19,
1990).
Theconclusionwereachby consideringtheevidenceto meeteachcriterionseparatelyis consistent
with a review of the evidencein the aggregate.Evenin the aggregate,the evidencedoesnot
distinguishthepetitionerasoneof thesmallpercentagewhohasrisentotheverytopof thefield of
endeavor.Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearly
demonstratethatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandis oneof the
smallpercentagewhohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
IV. Conclusion
Reviewof the recorddoesnot establishthat thepetitionerhasdistinguishedhimselfto suchan
extentthathemaybesaidto haveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandto be
within the smallpercentageat thevery top of his field. Theevidenceis not persuasivethatthe
petitioner'sachievementssethim significantlyabovealmostall othersin hisfield ata nationalor
internationallevel. Therefore,the petitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theAct,andthepetitionmaynotbeapproved.
An applicationor petitionthatfailsto complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelaw maybe
deniedby the AAO evenif the ServiceCenterdoesnot identify all of the groundsfor denialin
the initial decision. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229 F. Supp.2d at 1043,
Page20
affd, 345 F.3dat 683; seealso Soltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145(noting that the AAO conducts
appellatereviewonadenovobasis).
Thepetitionwill bedeniedfor theabovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasanindependent
andalternativebasisfor denial. In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for
thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.
Here,thatburdenhasnotbeenmet.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.