dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: FEB 1 0 2015 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to your 
case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to 
reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days 
of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for 
the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file 
a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
rt!��;trativc Ap�ffi Offi� 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" as an engineer, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the hnmigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)( l)(A), which 
makes visas available to aliens who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through 
extensive documentation. The director determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial 
evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time 
achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief with documentation that was previously submitted and claims 
that he meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. For the reasons discussed below, we agree that 
the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the 
regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he is one 
of the small percentage who is at the very top in the field of endeavor, and that he has sustained national 
or international acclaim. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's 
appeal. 
I. LAW 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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 H.R. 723 l01 5t Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonst rate the alien's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the alien's achievements in the field 
through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 
petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient qualifying evidence 
that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of crite ria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether 
the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A Evidentiary Criteria 1 
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. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "[ d]ocumentation of the 
alien's membership in associations in the field for which is classification is sought, which require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in 
their disciplines or fields." In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this 
criterion, a petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential 
condition for admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in 
a given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner 
claims to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
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 not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's 
overall reputation. 
In his decision, the director indicated that the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on his 
membership with the and the 
The director found that 
although the petitioner submitted evidence demonstrating his membership in these associations, the 
petitioner did not provide evidence that outstanding achievements are required for membership. 
Furthermore, the director stated that although the petitioner was notified that additional evidence was 
required to establish eligibility, the petitioner did not provide any additional evidence in response to the 
director's April2, 2014 request for evidence (RFE). 
On appeal, the petitioner claims his eligibility for this criterion is based on "evidence that he is one of 
only a few 'members' of the group of individuals who have been Certified as Experts, authorized to 
provide expert testimony on engineering issues in court and arbitration proceedings." In addition, the 
petitioner claims eligibility based on his membership with the 
Regarding the petitioner's claim as a certified expert, the petitioner submitted letters from 
Chairman of the Committee of the who claimed that the 
-
petitioner's application was approved "in the book of expert's [sic] and arbitrators of the organization," 
and legal advisor to who claimed that "all members . . . are required to be 
experienced and well known engineers, and leaders in their field." Although not addressed by the 
director in his decision, the translations accompanying the letters do not meet the requirements of the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b) that provides in pertinent part: 
(3) Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall 
be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified 
as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent 
to translate from the foreign language into English. 
The petitioner submitted a single certificate of translation for all of the foreign language documents at 
the initial filing of the petition and again in response to the director's RFE, it is unclear, however, which 
documents, if any, to which the certifications pertain. The submission of a single translation 
certification for each submission that does not identify the document or documents it claims to 
accompany does not meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, 
the evidence has no probative value and will not be considered in this proceeding. Notwithstanding, 
we are not persuaded that having experience, being well-known, and being a leader in the field equate to 
outstanding achievements. Moreover, the petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence 
establishing that membership with is judged by recognized national or international experts in 
the field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
Regarding , the petitioner submitted a letter from General Manager for 
who outlined the petitioner's various roles and contributions for , such as treasurer, member of 
the management, and member of the managing committee. In addition, the petitioner submitted 
screenshots from that reflect the association's history, achievements, goals, and 
services. The petitioner also submitted screenshots from the 
reflecting that is a member of Although on appeal the petitioner 
em hasizes affiliation with the petitioner did not submit any documentation regarding 
membership requirements. The petitioner did not demonstrate that membership with 
requires outstanding achievement as judged by recognized national or international experts, consistent 
with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Finally, the petitioner did not contest the findings of the director regarding Therefore, the 
petitioner abandoned this issue. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 
2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV�27312011, 2011 WL 4711885, at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) 
(the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish 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 allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence 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." Although a review of the record of proceeding reflects that the 
majority of the petitioner's evidence consisted of uncertified translations that cannot be considered, the 
petitioner submitted a letter from , who provided 
. details of audits conducted by the petitioner for the ' and ' 
'' As such, the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that he meets 
the plain language of this regulatory criterion. Therefore, we agree with the director's fmdings for this 
criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in 
the field." Here, the evidence must rise to the level of original contributions "of major significance in 
the field." The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some 
meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3r d Cir. 1995) quoted in 
APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nct Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, the 
petitioner claims that although he submitted samples and excerpts of the audits he performed, court 
cases in which he was called as an expert witness, and contracts for his company's engineering services, 
the director did not discuss any of his evidence but instead focused on discounting his testimonial 
letters. A review of the record of proceeding reflects that on April 2, 2014, the director issued an RFE 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8). In the RFE, the director listed the petitioner's 
evidence, including the witness testimony and audit evidence, and indicated that the evidence did not 
reflect that his contributions were of major significance. The director also notified the petitioner of 
examples of evidence that the petitioner could submit to establish eligibility. In response, the petitioner 
submitted previously submitted evidence and additional reference letters. In his decision, the director 
noted the previously submitted documentation and determined that the additional reference letters did 
not demonstrate that the petitioner's contributions have been of major significance in the field. 
Regardless, we will review the documentation and determine whether the petitioner established that he 
has made original contributions of major significance in the field consistent with the plain language of 
this regulatory criterion. We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. 
United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
Regarding the petitioner's claim as an expert witness, the petitioner submitted an uncertified translation 
of the previously discussed letter from In addition, the petitioner submitted an 
uncertified translation of a document regarding the petitioner's expert opinion on behalf of the 
and the Further, the petitioner 
submitted an uncertified translation of a letter from Commander for Crime Investigations, 
to the petitioner requesting his professional opinion of Finally, the petitioner submitted 
a screenshot from 
_ _ regarding the arrest of 20 employees of · for colluding 
with contractors performing infrastructure work in order to embezzle money from the company. 
Again, with the exception of the _ _ screenshot that was originally in the English language, 
the petitioner submitted uncertified translations that do not comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b) and thus have no probative value. Regardless, the documentary evidence does not reflect 
that the petitioner's contributions have risen to a level of major significance in the field as a whole. 
Rather, the evidence reflects the petitioner's contributions to his limited engagements, such as his 
professional opinion to the investigation. The petitioner did not submit any 
documentation that indicated how his professional and expert testimony has impacted or influenced his 
engineering field. Simply submitting documentation reflecting the petitioner's contribution as an expert 
witness is insufficient to meet the plain language of this regulatory criterion without evidence to show 
that his expert testimony has been of major significance to the field. 
Similarly, regarding the petitioner's claim as an auditor, the petitioner submitted an uncertified 
translation of a document for an audit of the construction of the 
an uncertified translation of a letter from City Comptroller for 
, regarding audit of the Engineering Department; an uncertified translation of a 
contract between the ; an uncertified translation of a 
letter from Municipality Comptroller for regarding the audit for two projects 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
by and headed by the petitioner; and an uncertified translation of a letter from City 
Comptroller for , regarding an audit of an engineering project conducted by and 
headed by the petitioner. 
Once again, the uncertified translations submitted do not comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b )(3). While, some of the documentation only indicates that conducted the audits without 
any reference to the petitioner's contributions, the letters from and indicate 
that the petitioner led the audits. Nonetheless, the letters only reflect the impact that the audits had on 
the projects in their municipalities. The petitioner did not submit any other documentation to 
demonstrate that his audits have been of major significance in the field pursuant to the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The petitioner also submitted reference letters from and and the 
previously discussed letter from . According to Mr. the petitioner developed an 
"audit methodology," and the petitioner and ·'are the first auditors to provide a report such as this in 
Israel." Further, indicated that engineers in Israel "have adopted the standards proposed 
by [the petitioner] and ' Moreover, stated that the petitioner's "system actually 
improves the quality of work performed by all major engineering firms in Israel." 
Although the letters credit the petitioner for developing an "audit methodology," "standards," or 
"system," the petitioner did not submit any objective evidence demonstrating the originality of his 
work. Moreover, the petitioner did not establish that his work is considered an original contribution of 
major significance in the field as whole. The supporting letters only discuss the implementation of the 
petitioner's methodology in cities in Israel rather than to the field of engineering. 
The opinions of the petitioner's references 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. !d. 
The submission of reference letters supporting the petition 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 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion 
testimony is not evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the references' 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 that one would expect of an individual who has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Cf Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-135 
(concluding that USCIS' decision to give little weight to uncorroborated assertions from professionals 
in the field was not arbitrary and capricious). 
Even if the petitioner established that his "audit methodology" is an original contribution of major 
significance in the field, which he did not, the use of the plural in the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the petitioner must show that he has made more than one original 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page8 
contribution of major significance in the field. The use of the plural is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. 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 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. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 
2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1, *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). 
Without additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work is original and has been 
unusually influential, widely applied throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original 
contributions of major significance, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the alien 
has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation." In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in 
which the alien contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization 
or establishment's activities. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, the 
petitioner claims that he meets this criterion based on his role as lead engineer and owner of and as 
treasurer and member of management of 
Regarding . the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he performed 
in a leading role for as both the lead engineer and co-owner of the business. On appeal, the 
petitioner claims that "[a]s performed major engineering work for entire cities and major private 
companies, I ] is a 'dis tinguished organization."' Although the petitioner submitted documentation, 
including uncertified translations, that reflects contracts and completed work with businesses and 
governments, such as _ and Israel , we are 
not persuaded that sirnpl y performing work for businesses and governments establishes the 
distinguished reputation of . The petitioner did not submit any documentation that differentiates 
from other engineering businesses. The petitioner, for example, did not submit any awards or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
recogmtwns that received for its work m the field, so as to demonstrate that it enjoys a 
distinguished reputation. 
Regarding , as discussed under the membership criterion, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
who indicated that the petitioner held the positions of treasurer, member of management, 
and member of the managing committee. On appeal, as evidence of reputation, the petitioner 
referred to the previously discussed screenshots from reflecting that is a member and the 
screenshots from reflecting its history, achievements, goals, and services. In addition, the 
petitioner submitted an uncertified translation of an unidentified screenshot about ' ' claiming 
that " IS A MEMBER of the and is represented in the 
Bureau of the President." On appeal, the petitioner claims that "[t]he fact that the is related to 
confirms that the is 'distinguished."' We are not persuaded that simply being related 
or affiliated with other organizations establishes the distinguished reputation of Similarly, the 
petitioner did not submit any documentation regarding membership requirements, so as to 
establish that membership status with reflects distinguished reputation. 
Besides submitting evidence of affiliation with and the petitioner has not 
offered any evidence that demonstrates ; reputation consistent with the regulatory criterion that 
requires that the organizations or establishments to "have a distinguished reputation." 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
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 determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires "[e]vidence that the alien has commanded a high 
salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field." A review 
of the record of proceeding, however, does not reflect that the petitioner submitted sufficient 
documentary evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted a letter from 
, who stated: 
I hereby confirm that the annual income of in 2012 was 2.2 
million Nis(630,000$),and [sic] in 2013 -2.7 million Nis (770,000$) 
has four employees and the actual revenue for the owner [the petitioner] in the 
year 2013 after the expanses [sic] was 1.1 million Nis. 
The petitioner also submitted a screenshot from XE Currency Converter reflecting that 1,100,000 Israeli 
Shekel is equivalent to $316,7 27. The petitioner, however, did not submit any primary evidence of his 
salary such as paystubs or income tax documentation. Moreover, the letter does not reflect the 
petitioner's salary. Rather, the letter refers to the petitioner' s "actual revenue" from the business, which 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
has four employees. While the tax return of the business may reflect the petitioner's success as a 
businessman, he seeks eligibility as an engineer, not as an entrepreneur. There is no evidence 
demonstrating that actual revenue is the petitioner's salary independent of the efforts of his employees. 
As the petitioner has not established his salary at he has not demonstrated that he commands a high 
salary compared to others in his field. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a screenshot from www .flcdatacenter.com for civil engineers in the 
metropolitan area. The Foreign Labor Certification (FLC) 
Data Center's Online Wage Library relies on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational 
Employment Statistics (OES) wage estimates? The OES program collects data on wage and salary 
workers in nonfarm establishments in order to produce employment and wage estimates for about 800 
occupations. The BLS produces occupational employment and wage estimates for over 450 industry 
classifications at the national level. The employment data are benchmarked to average employment 
levels.3 The plain language of the regulation requires the petitioner to establish that his salary is high 
when compared to others in the field. As such, average statistics limited to one particular area do not 
meet this requirement. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of "a high salary or other significantly 
high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for 
comparison showing that his earnings were high in relation to others in his field. The record contains 
no objective earnings data showing that the petitioner has earned a "high salary" or "significantly high 
remuneration" in comparison with those performing similar work during the same time period. See 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's 
earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 
1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 
444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL 
defensemen). In the present case, the evidence the petitioner submits does not establish that he has 
received a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in the 
field. Therefore, we withdraw the findings of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
2 See http:Uwww.flcdatacenter.com/fag.aspx. 
3 See http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes emp.htm#estimates. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
III. 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 o( the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be 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 field of endeavor," 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)(2) 
and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the proper 
conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting 
evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) and (4). 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final merits 
determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a finding that 
the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification sought.4 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 
P.3d at 145. In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the 
office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA §§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); 
DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) 
(2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole 
authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).