dismissed EB-1A Case: Environmental Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 1 6 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
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 l-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.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
�you, 
�on� erg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, 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. The director 
found that the petitioner had met only the categories of evidence at 8 C. F.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. The petitioner asserts that she meets 
the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(ii), (viii), and (ix). 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for 
the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence 
of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F. 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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)( i)-(x). As such, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who is at the very top in the 
field of endeavor, and that she has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C. F. 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. 
U.S. Citizenship and hnmigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 51 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. I d.; 
8 C.P.R. § 204. 5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204. 5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petlt10ner can 
demonstrate 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.P. 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 (91h Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, 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 (91h Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 13 1-32 (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 users 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 Criteria1 
The Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, was filed on February 4, 2014. The 
petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the field of environmental 
engineering. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a Senior Consultant with 
_ _ _ 
in New Jersey. Previously, the petitioner worked in Colombia holding 
jobs such as consultant, professor, and Director of the Civil and Environmental Engineering 
Programs at 
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 director determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. On 
appeal, the petitioner asserts that her membership in "the l . 
' and its peer evaluator/reviewer system meets the elements 
of this regulatory criterion. 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the 
petitioner asserts that she meets or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
The petitioner submitted a November 16, 2011, certificate from Director, 
Research Development Division, 
=========�· stating that the petitioner was a "Peer Reviewer of the 
in accordance with the requirements defined 
in the document of the 'Recognized Peer Reviewers Information System of the 
. "' The submitted evidence does not establish that service as a peer 
reviewer constitutes membership in an association. Significantly, the regulations include a separate 
criterion for participation as a judge of the work of others at 8 C.P.R. § 204. 5( h)(3)(iv), and the 
petitioner's service as a peer review will be addressed there. There is no presumption that evidence 
directly relating to one criterion must also satisfy another criterion. To hold otherwise would undermine 
the regulatory requirement that a petitioner satisfy three criteria and the statutory requirement for 
extensive evidence. 
The petitioner also submitted an August 24, 2012, letter in the Spanish language from Mr. We 
note that while the translator certified the English language translation as complete and accurate, the 
translation contains additional wording not included in the original document. For example, Mr. 
letter reads, in part: 
The accompanying certified English language translation of Mr. letter states: 
The identification of those outstanding members who meet the requirements defined in the 
bylaws section described above, and from the records of the resumes of researchers in the 
platform . , we proceed to invite them to be part of the Exclusive 
Bank of Scientists through the For Peer Reviewers, which 
are accepted national and internationally. 
Within the wide area of Engineering, it is the Environmental Engineering subarea. In this 
subarea, 75 people out of 4,156 people from the full group of researchers are recognized as 
Peer Reviewers. It represents the 2% of the group. In this way, [the petitioner], ID number 
issued in is part of this 2% of experts that are recognized for their 
outstanding achievements, and has been invited to join the 
field of knowledge. 
(List attached). 
[Emphasis added.] 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
In addition, a March 17, 2010 letter, from 
states: 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
, Director, 
However, the accompanying certified English language 
translation states: 
I would like to invite you to become a member of exclusive group of 
scientists as recognition to your career and outstanding achievements in original research 
in your field of expertise, and as an opportunity to contribute to strengthening the scientific 
and technological development of the country. I will greatly appreciate your prompt 
confirmation and permission to include your name in our selective group of scientist [s] . 
[Emphasis added.] Pursuant to the regulation at 8 C. F. R. § 103. 2(b )(3), any document containing a 
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. Despite the translator's 
certification that the English language translation is "accurate," the above text emphasized in bold does 
not appear in the original Spanish language letters. The translator's personal assertions are not 
evidence. In her appellate brief, the petitioner quotes and relies upon this mistranslation to support the 
assertion that selection as a peer reviewer for requires outstanding achievements. With 
regard to the multiple inaccuracies in the submitted English language translations, doubt cast on any 
aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Even if the petitioner had established that participation within a group of peer reviewers for 
is a level of membership in an association, which she has not, she has not established that inclusion on 
their list of peer evaluators requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. 
On appeal, the petitioner references the document entitled "Service for Information of 
Recognized Peer Reviewers of the ." Article 4 of 
this document provides the following general minimum requirements "to be recognized as peer 
reviewer of the 
"· 
• Graduate degree (master or doctorate) or 10 years of research experience or technological 
innovation; 
• Directed one research or technological project or participation in three projects and having 
scientific production or outcomes associated with projects within the last 10 years; 
• Having at least three products resulting from the research, scientific or technological 
development conducted in the last 10 years (these products include research papers, research 
books, book chapters, patented or registered products/technological processes, products or 
technological processes not normally covered by patents, standards based on research 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
results, gray literature and other non-certified products, dissertations, participation m 
graduate programs, and disclosure of a group's research project results); 
• Filling out the resume instrument; 
• Filling out the registration box of peer reviewers; and 
• Fulfillment of the basic conditions of the peer reviewer role. 
At issue for this criterion are the requirements for selection, not the petitioner's actual achievements. 
Moreover, the requirements must be reflective of outstanding achievements in the field. On appeal, the 
petitioner asserts that "[i]t is universally accepted that an ability to demonstrate such achievements as 
described in the above requirements signifies excellence in one's professional endeavors." The 
petitioner, however, has not established that the preceding list of requirements rises to the level of 
outstanding achievements. For example, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (OOH), 2014-15 Edition provides information about the nature of employment as a 
postsecondary teacher (professor) and the requirements for such a position. See 
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library!postsecondary-teachers.htm#tab-3, accessed on 
March 10, 2015, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. The handbook states that faculty 
members are pressured to perform research and to publish their findings and that the professor's 
research record is a consideration for tenure. In addition, doctoral programs require graduate students 
to prepare "a doctoral dissertation, which is a paper presenting original research in the student's field 
of study. " See http:ijwww .bls. gov/ ooh/education-training-and-library/postsecondary­
teachers.htm#tab-4, accessed on March 10, 2015, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
This information reveals that authoring research publications and preparing a dissertation for graduate 
program are standard accomplishments in a university setting that do not set the author apart from other 
faculty in the field. In addition, Article 4 of the document states that those "who have no 
graduate degree or those which, being retired from the activity does [sic] not have research projects or 
products in the last 10 years may also register their resume and apply for recognition as peer reviewers." 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the requirements for inclusion in the registry of peer 
reviewers constitute outstanding achievements. 
The etitioner further states that she is also a member of two research groups within 
and and 
characterizes both as "research groups" and "another level of membership." Regarding and 
the petitioner only provided evidence that she was part of each research group. The petitioner did 
not document that either research group constitutes an association with a membership body as required 
by the regulation or a separate level of membership in as asserted by the petitioner, rather 
than a division that members voluntarily join without restriction according to their interests. 
Specifically, the bylaws only discuss the mission of the research groups without implying that 
nationally or internationally recognized experts select members of the research groups based on their 
outstanding achievements. Similarly, Mr. discusses the national databases of research groups, 
the participant researchers, and the importance of the real time information these databases provide to 
science policymakers but does not discuss the requirements for participating in these research groups. 
The evidence of record is insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's involvement with either of 
these entities meets the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 petitioner's service as a peer reviewer meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. On 
appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this criterion or offer additional 
arguments. When an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned. 
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. 2011) (plaintiffs claims abandoned 
when not raised on appeal). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The evidence supports the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. On 
appeal, the petitioner asserts that she has performed in a leading or critical role for 
in Columbia and 
The petitioner submitted documentary evidence showing that has a distinguished reputation. For 
example, the petitioner submitted media reports about and the results of a university rankings 
report prepared by ., an independent management consulting firm, listing the top fifty ranked 
higher education institutions in Colombia. The university rankings show that was ranked 
fifth in the nation. 
The submitted evidence, however, does not establish that the petitioner played a leading or critical role 
for the university. In support of her claim of a leading or critical role for the petitioner submitted 
a letter from "Director (E) of the Institute for [] Sustainable Development" 
, in which he states that falls under the Engineering Division at and 
"leads the environmental discussion in Colombia" through the Conference. Mr. 
asserts that the petitioner's critical role for was through teaching and developing 
"specialized international and national courses" and through coordinating the extension of 
the In addition, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
stating that the petitioner was "an active participant in 
teaching of engineering and environmental management students" at and "participated as 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
professor on several academic courses and graduate programs of the " The petitioner, however, has 
not established that her role as a professor and coordinator of one extension of one conference 
constitutes a leading or critical role for or for 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from Dr. a former "Associate Professor, 
Researcher, and Chairman of Civil Engineering" at from 2000 - 2006, stating that the petitioner 
served as an "academic peer, guest lecturer/visiting scholar, researcher, and peer reviewer" at In 
addition, Dr. asserts that the petitioner "led accreditation process of the Civil Engineering 
program .. . to achieve the 
(2004), and ... the International Accreditation given by the United States Board for 
Engineering and Technology" (2010), but there is no documentary evidence to support the assertion of 
the petitioner's participation as leader of the UdN accreditation process during the times specified. 
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. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). In 
addition, USCIS need not rely on unsubstantiated claims. See 1756, Inc. v. US Att'y Gen., 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in 
immigration benefits adjudications); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp.3d at 134-35 (upholding USCIS' 
decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field). Moreover, 
the petitioner has not established that her specific involvement in the accreditation process for the Civil 
Engineering program at was a leading or critical role for the university. 
While the petitioner submitted curricula for courses she designed and taught at , there is no 
evidence demonstrating that these courses have impacted or even beyond the university's 
need for competent professors who prepare curricula for academic courses. The petitioner did not 
provide an organizational chart or other similar evidence to establish where her teaching position fit 
within the overall hierarchy of or the . The submitted evidence does not demonstrate how 
the petitioner's role differentiated her from the other lecturers, researchers, and professors working at 
or the or among their tenured faculty and directors. The submitted documentation does not 
differentiate the petitioner from the other professors and faculty so as to demonstrate her leading role, 
and does not establish that she contributed to the university and the ; in a way that was significant 
to their success or standing. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she has performed 
in a leading or critical role for or the 
Furthermore, had the petitioner established her leading or critical role for . she has not shown that 
enjoys a distinguished reputation. Although the petitioner submitted promotional slides, course 
information, and a letter from Dr. , Director of the discussing the vision and 
objectives of the . the submitted documentation does not establish the IDS' reputation outside of 
USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. Cf Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, 
aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). 
With regard to the petitioner's. role for 
President of and Dr. 
, the petitioner submitted letters from Dr. 
, Vice President of indicating that the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
petitioner was the Director of the Civil and Environmental Engineering programs at from 2007 -
2011. Dr. listed the petitioner's duties and responsibilities as Director as follows: 
• Convene and chair the Department Committee and other meetings the Department. 
• Submit proposals to the Academic Dean of Development Department's budget plans, 
Investments and substantial businesses, budget additions, and changes. 
• Oversee the implementation of plans and budgets approved by the appropriate authorities 
of the University. 
• Coordinate activities by Professors of the Department and make them work plans of the 
semester, present them the Academic Dean for approval, and follow-up according to the 
guidelines set by the Academic Vice President. 
• Promote, coordinate and evaluate the development of research activities through groups, 
lines, and research projects, and seek, as it is concerned, the resource needs. 
• Coordinate the development and updating of syllabi by the Department, in accordance 
with the applications of the respective program directors and other . departments of the 
university, and give approval for its offer. 
• Propose to the Academic Dean the appointment, promotion and dismissal of staff of his 
or her Department, in accordance with the criteria and procedures established academic 
and administrative under the Regulations of the University. 
• Plan, promote and coordinate the creation and development laboratories, workshops, 
computer resources and other provisions necessary facilities for the academic activities of 
the Department, in accordance with criteria of general convenience for the University. 
The preceding duties and responsibilities of the Director of the Civil and Environmental Engineering 
programs at are indicative of performing in a leading role for the university. In addition, the 
petitioner submitted documentary evidence of awards and distinctions received by media articles 
about the university, and letters of support showing that has earned a distinguished reputation. 
Although the petitioner's role for and its reputation meet the elements of this regulatory criterion, 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence that the petitioner 
has performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished "organizations or establishments" in the 
plural. 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.P. R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded 
in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.P. 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.P.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 USC IS' ability to 
interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. Cf Maramjaya v. 
USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158, 2008 WL 9398947, *1, *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. 
v. Chertoff, No. CV06-65, 2006 WL 3491005, at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 2006) (upholding an 
interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent 
degree at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic 
credentials). Without evidence showing that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
for more than one distinguished organization or establishment, the petitioner has not establishea that 
she meets this regulatory 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 had not established eligibility for this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a March 14, 2012, letter from Dr. 
� 
payroll statements, tax documentation, and her employment and special project contracts. Dr. 
� 
asserts that the petitioner earned a yearly salary of 56,433,000 pesos as a professor and an 
additional salary of 129,000,000 pesos as a researcher/consultant. The payroll statement for which the 
petitioner provided an English translation indicates a monthly �ase salary of 3,677,948 pesos, which 
annualizes to 44,135,376 pesos. The petitioner's tax documentation indicates that in 2009, she claimed 
a salary of 56,433,000 pesos and additional remuneration of 129,000,000 pesos in fees, 86,000 pesos in 
interest, and 727,000 pesos in other income. The petitioner's employment contract for a position as a 
professor lists a monthly salary of 2,645,000 pesos. The special projects contracts list various 
percentages of fees that the petitioner was to receive for specific research projects. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an August 9, 2012, letter from Director of 
Human Resources at , stating that the petitioner's salary was 185,433,000 pesos in 2009, which 
was "one of the highest salaries among others who are at the top of her field serving as professor." Ms. 
explains that salary is based on education and experience and provides several tables in 
which she attempts to compare the petitioner's salary with others in the field, including "top 
professors," ''top researchers-consultants," and "top employees with dual capacity professor and 
researcher." Ms. data, however, are inconsistent, unreliable, and do not provide 
appropriate bases for comparison. For example, she compares the petitioner's 2009 salary as a 
university professor with the 2005-2006 median faculty salaries in the United States. She then reduces 
the salaries by a factor of 8.25, which she states is the number of times the minimum wage in the U.S. 
exceed the minimum wage in Colombia. Ms. does not explain where she obtained the 
information regarding the minimum wage or why the reduction was appropriate. She continues: 
[The petitioner could] command a maximum salary per year of $107,330,400 COP (USD 
[$]60,998.77) over his or her salary as a professor. The fact that [the petitioner] commanded 
USD $105,386.60 demonstrates not only that she was paid significantly higher than other top 
professors/researchers but that she was reaching the ceiling of the maximum pay attainable by a 
Professor/Researcher in Colombia. 
In a subsequent letter dated March 26, 2014, Ms. asserts that "only 5.4 percent of the 
university's employees" working as both "Professor/Researchers" and consultants "have commanded a 
significantly higher salary, such as [the petitioner's]." Ms. further states that the 
petitioner's salary was the second highest salary paid. Salary comparisons limited to those 
working at however, are not sufficient to demonstrate a high salary relative to others in the field. 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of Colombian Decree No. 1238, dated Aprill3, 2009, modifying 
professors' salaries in Colombia and providing that the fourth level monthly salary for a professor with 
a Ph.D., like the petitioner in this matter, is 4,203,996 pesos. None of the submitted documents, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
however, provide any data regarding research and consulting fees, the petitioner' s other remuneration 
beyond her salary. 
The petitioner also submitted a Human Capital Report relating to salaries for those in higher education 
in Colombia. According to the Human Capital Report, the third quartile monthly income for full 
professors, tenure track, class B, is 5,376,000 pesos. In addition, Dr. _ stated in her November 
16, 2011 and January 21, 2013 letters that the petitioner was Director of the Civil and Environmental 
Engineering programs at The Human Capital Report lists the third quartile monthly salary for a 
director of an academic program as 4,568,000 pesos. However, the copy of the report submitted does 
not include data for the 90 percentile as it does for other job titles. The submitted information does not 
establish that the petitioner's monthly salary as a professor and director of two academic programs, 
3,677,948 pesos, falls within even the third quartile for the position she actually held. 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not established that a comparison of her salary as a professor plus her 
research fees is a useful comparison to professors' salaries alone. The research fees constitute other 
remuneration. According to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the 
petitioner must demonstrate that any other remuneration separate from her salary as a professor is 
"significantly high." The petitioner has not submitted objective evidence of research fees in Colombia 
for comparison purposes. Instead, Ms. asserts that, when including the petitioner's 
research fees, the petitioner has earned a "salary that was much higher than the one established in 
guidelines." Comparison with fees at one university, however, is insufficient and does not 
show that the petitioner has earned "significantly high" remuneration for her research and consulting 
services. 
On appeal, the petitiOner references the letter from Dr. Professor of Civil and 
Environmental Engineering, providing general information about 
multiple employment opportunities that are available to environmental engineers. Dr. states 
that "the universal title as Environmental Engineer may perform tasks as consultant, researcher 
and/or professor." Dr. further states that environmental engineers are "employed at universities 
or colleges, research firms, testing facilities, major corporations, U.S. Federal government and state 
and local affiliates, or environmental consulting firms, professional associations or utility 
companies." 
In addition, the petitioner mentions an "Environmental Engineering Overview" from the 
that provides information about the type of work that environmental 
engineers perform including water and air pollution control, recycling, waste disposal, and public 
health issues. The submitted information further states that "[m]any environmental engineers work 
as consultants, helping their clients to comply with regulations and to clean up hazardous sites." The 
submitted overview also includes occupational statistics for the environmental engineering industry. 
The petitioner also points to the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), 
2014-15 Edition, listing the five industries that "employed the most environmental engineers in 2012." 
The submitted information states that the "median annual wage for environmental engineers was 
$80,890 in May 2012." The petitioner, however, did not submit any evidence of her earnings from 
_ _ _ 
. from 2012 to the petition's filing date. Regardless, "median" 
wage data is not a proper basis for comparison. This regulatory criterion requires evidence showing 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
that the petitioner has earned a high salary or significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the 
field rather than a just a salary that places her in the top half of the field. 
The petitioner asserts that the information about the field of environmental engineering provided in 
Dr. letter, the "Environmental Engineering Overview" from the 
and the OOH shows that "the earnings an Environmental Engineer commands is [sic] 
determined by the industry in which he or she is employed and as such should be compared to others 
working in the same field or industry." In addition, the petitioner contends that "it is acceptable to 
compare [the petitioner's] remuneration to other environmental engineers working in the same 
positions as professors and/or researchers in teaching institutions such as universities and 
consultants." We agree with the preceding principles mentioned by the petitioner on appeal. As 
previously discussed, however, the petitioner has not established that her salary as a professor and 
director of two academic programs at was high relative to others in similar positions. In addition, 
the petitioner did not submit any evidence demonstrating that her remuneration as a consultant was 
significantly high in relation to others who provide environmental engineering consulting services. 
The petitioner must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that she has earned a "high 
salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in comparison with those performing similar work 
during the same time period. See Skokos v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 
(9th e ir. 2011) (finding average salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a 
comparison to others in the field); see also 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); Grimson v. INS, 
934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL 
enforcers); Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. eomrn'r 1994) (considering professional 
golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers). The submitted evidence does not show that the 
petitioner has earned a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to 
others in her field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory 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. 
C. Prior 0-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Status 
The record reflects that the petitioner is the beneficiary of an approved 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
petition for an alien of extraordinary ability. This prior approval does not preclude USers from 
denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased standard. Each petition 
must be decided on a case-by-case basis upon review of the evidence of record. Many immigrant 
petitions are denied after USers approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IJ(EA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. 
Supp. 2d 22 (D.D. e . 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1103. See also Texas A&M 
Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556 (5th eir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
users from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of the alien's 
qualifications). 
We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church 
Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Cornm'r 1988). USCrS is not required to treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. See Sussex Eng'g Ltd v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 
(6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of 
appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on 
behalf of the alien, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. 
Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, *1, *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 
2000), ajfd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
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 of 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, while 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 sustained acclaim and expertise required 
for the classification sought. 2 For example, although the statute and regulations require the 
petitioner to demonstrate "sustained" national or international acclaim, the petitioner has not 
submitted any documentary evidence of peer review, authorship of scholarly articles, leading or 
critical roles, or high salary or other significantly high remuneration subsequent to 2012. 
2 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). 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.F.R. § 103.l(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). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.