dismissed EB-1A Case: Ethics

U.S. Department of Homeland SecuriQ 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNU SERVICE CENTER Date: JUh 0 2 2005 
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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
%&bert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center. The decision is now before the Administrative Appeals Office upon certification by the director. The 
decision will be affirmed. 
The petitioner sought classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. In 
- 
the sustained national or international acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability and 
denied the etition. The petitioner appealed the director's decision. The petitioner's Form I-290B lists thesame 
- address that he previously submitted. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) issued an 
order withdrawing the director's decision and remanding the case to the director for further action and entry of a 
decision to be certified to the AAO regardless of outcome. The issued a Notice of Intent 
to Deny (NOID). That notice was mailed to the petitioner at th ddress, but was returned 
with the envelope marked "Addressee Unknown. Attempted - Not Known." No further correspondence from 
the petitioner was received. The director then denied the petition and certified his decision to the AAO for 
review. A notice of certification and two transfer notices were sent to the petitioner, but were also returned to 
the California Service Center. 
Section 265(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1305(a), requires aliens such as the petitioner to notify United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) in writing of any change of address within ten days. This statutory 
requirement is further specified in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 265.1. Hence it is the alien's responsibility to 
keep CIS informed of any change of address. In this case, the record contains no further address change for the 
petitioner since his response to the RFE dated July 16, 2001. The last correspondence received from the 
g the same as that in-his July 16, 201 response, 
The director received no response to the NOID and 
tice. The petitioner has apparently moved, but has - - 
not informed CIS of his new address as required by statute. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts or sciences as an 
executive director of a future technology ethics department. In the previous decision, the AAO found that the 
director's decision did not address evidence in the record relating to five regulatory criteria and consequently 
issued an order remanding the case to the director for further action in accordance with the AAO decision and 
certification of the new decision to the AAO regardless of outcome. The director subsequently issued the 
aforementioned NOD, but received no response from the petitioner. The director then denied the petition and 
certified the decision to the AAO. We affirm the director's decision for the reasons discussed below under the 
regulatory criteria applicable to this case. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner's curriculum vitae lists his membership in several organizations, but the record contains 
y three of these memberships. The petitioner submitted a prospectus for the = 
copy of Foundations, published by the Foundation, which lists the petitioner as a member 
anel and a February 14, 1997 letter from the Foundation requesting that he join the 
"Council" of the Foundation. The petitioner also submitted a letter regarding the Society of Black Lawyers' 
launch of the Black Legal Agenda indicating an interest in inviting "senior members" of the society's board, 
especially the petitioner, to the launch. The record contains no documentation of the membership criteria for the 
Foundation of the Society or other evidence that outstanding achievements are a prerequisite to membership in 
these two organizations. The petitioner also submitted evidence of his membership in the Society for the Study 
of Christian Ethics. The petitioner asserts that this society is the main professional body in Great Britain for 
Christian ethicists and that membership requires nomination, seconding, and formal approval by existing 
members. Yet the record contains no evidence to corroborate these claims. 
In his decision, the director noted that the NOD requested submission of the bylaws, membership criteria and 
other evidence that would establish that the organizations require their members to have outstanding 
achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts in the alien's field. No such evidence 
was received and the director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the fieldfor which class.$cation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The record contains a certificate confirming the petitioner's inclusion in Who's Who in the World, 17" Edition 
2000, but no evidence that such inclusion reflects the sustained national or international acclaim requisite to 
classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. The NOID requested additional evidence of the petitioner's 
eligibility under this criterion, but no supplemental evidence was received. Consequently, the director correctly 
found that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, us a judge of the work ofothers 
in the same or an alliedjield of specijication for which classiJication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted two letters relevant to this criterion. a professor at the University of 
Essex, indicates that the etitioner was the editor of Church of England's Board for 
Social Responsibility. Dlaims that this publication is high1 this position, the 
petitioner coordinated and formulated Church policy on sensitive issues. secretary of the 
board, confirms that the petitioner served as editor for Crucible and t the petitioner's 
name as the editor to whom articles should be submitted. Although praises the petitioner's 
editorial pieces, he does not state how the editor of Crucible is chosen. The record also contains no evidence of 
Crucible's circulation. The NOID requested additional evidence to verify the claims of and= 
but no supplemental evidence was received. The director's decision discuss this evidence but oes 
not state whether or not the petitioner met this criterion. The letters from -and dare 
insufficient to establish that the petitioner's work as an editor reflects the requisite sustained acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
In the previous decision, the AAO noted that the signatures on photocopies of six letters, including those ofl 
and appear to be digitally reproduced and required the director to request submission of 
the original letters with the authors' original signatures pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(5). The director's 
subsequent NOID requested the original letters, but none were received from the petitioner. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientijk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
The director's present decision does not discuss the evidence submitted or the petitioner's eligibility under this 
criterion. However, this oversight has not prejudiced the petitioner because he meets no other regulatory 
criteria. In addition, the previous AAO decision concurred with the director's determination in his original 
decision that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The director's subsequent NOD requested pre-existing 
independent evidence of the petitioner's contributions to his field as well as evidence that the petitioner had 
actually formulated the opinions advanced in position papers that he purportedly helped write. No additional 
evidence was received. Consequently, the record does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion for 
the reasons discussed in the previous AAO decision. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterio 
the commissioning editor of the publishing company 
1 publication date for me Situated Soul: Wisdom and 
The petitioner also submitted a database printout regarding his thesis, which does not indicate that it was 
published in a nationally circulated, peer-reviewed journal. The record also contains copies of Crucible and 
Essex Papers in Theology and Society that contain the petitioner's commentary as well as copies of two other 
opinion pieces and a book review written by the petitioner. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted copies of "Submission of the Church of England Board for Social 
Responsibility to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice," "Sunday Trading" and "Prosecution of Alleged 
War Criminals." These articles are not attributed to any one individual, but were published as the opinions of 
the Board for Social Responsibility, although the record contains a letter from the publishing company 
requesting the petitioner to prepare an article on the Church's position on Sunday Trading. 
The NOID requested evidence that these articles were published in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, but no additional evidence was received. Accordingly, the petitioner has not met this 
criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has perj5omzed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The record contains a list of 
members of the executive committee of the Society for the Study of Christian Ethics (SSCE) indicating that the 
petitioner became a member of the committee in 1997. The petitioner states that the SSCE is the main 
professional body in Great Britain for ethicists working in the Christian tradition. According to the petitioner, 
the executive committee plans the annual conference and provides "critical support" for the editor of Studies in 
Christian Ethics, a semi-annual publication of the society. 
The petitioner also asserts that as director of the Center for the Study of Theology at the University of Essex, he 
established a Masters program in theology at this traditionally secular school. The record contains a pamphlet 
for the Masters program listing the petitioner as the Director for the Center for the Study of Theology. The 
petitioner also submitted a University of Leeds Newsletter announcing the formation of Friends of the 
Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University for which the petitioner agreed to serve as the 
first chairman. As previously discussed, the petitioner also submitted a letter indicating that he was a "senior 
member" of the board of the Society of Black Lawyers. 
The NOD requested evidence of the distinguished reputation of the organizations and establishments for which 
the petitioner worked as well as documentation of the nature of the petitioner's exact role that would 
demonstrate that he performed a leading or critical role. No supplemental evidence was submitted. 
Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient to meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act only if the alien can 
establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or international acclaim 
demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The petitioner bears this substantial 
burden of proof. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. rj 1361. The petitioner in this case has not sustained that 
burden and the record does not establish that he is an alien of extraordinary ability. Accordingly, the 
director's decision denying the petition will be affirmed. 
ORDER: The decision of the director is affirmed.