dismissed EB-1A Case: Film Producer

u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .• MS 2090 
WashinQ:!on, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: DEC 1 9 2012 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.s.C. § lI53(b)(l )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 c.F.R. § \03.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § \03.5(a)(l )(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you. 
/l~OQ~hcl 
L Ron Rosenberg 
\ ~ Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The director reopened the matter on the petitioner's motion, and denied 
the petition again. The matter 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" in the arts, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A) as 
a film producer. I The director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite 
extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of her sustained national or 
international acclaim. The director also determined that the petitioner had not established that she 
was among that small percentage at the very top of her field of endeavor. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On October 1, 2012, in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(i), the AAO 
issued a notice advising the petitioner of derogatory information regarding documentation that 
she submitted in support of the petition. The notice specifically observed that the petitioner 
signed the Form 1-140, thereby certifying under penalty of perjury that "this petition and the 
evidence submitted with it are all true and correct." The AAO's notice of derogatory 
information stated: 
1WJV 1" L'at'lbalse, a comprehensive online database of information related to films, does 
not list you in the "full cast and crew" credits as having produced the film. See 
http://www.imdb.comltitle/tt1223082/ fullcredits#cast, accessed on September 13, 2012, 
copy incorporated into the record of proceeding and attached to this notice. Thus, the 
documents appear to 
be false. in its original 
as a producer 
in the film's credits. 
You submitted a November 11, 2009 photocopied letter allegedly written by ••• 
_ of the Los Angeles Film Teachers Association (LAFTA) that misspells the word 
1 According to the petitioner's Form 1-94, Depanure Record, she was last admitted to the United States on 
August 20, 2010 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. 
--Page 3 
"association" as "ASSOSIA TION" and that contains multiple grammatical errors in the 
third paragraph. This letter does not include an address, a telephone number, or any other 
information through which its author can be contacted. Accordin~California 
Secretary of State's database of corporations, the status of the _ has been 
"SUSPENDED" since 1991. See http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx, accessed on 
September 13, 2012, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding and attached to this 
notice. Please submit the original of_ November 11,2009 letter. In addition, 
as there is no reliable evidence confrrming that th~was an active association in 
California in November 2009, please submit competent and objective documentary evidence 
demonstrating the of as of 2009 and an updated letter with proper 
contact information or a current officer of the_affirming the full 
content of the November 11, 2009 letter. 
On appeal, you submitted the following: 
1. "AGREEMENT on managing a film making process titled 'Occasional record'" 
dated 15th August 200S; 
2. "AGREEMENT on managing a film making process titled 'Deadlock joy'" dated 4th 
March 2009; 
3. "AGREEMENT on managing a film making process titled 'lOS minutes'" dated 1st 
October 2009; 
4. "AGREEMENT on managing a film making process titled 'Start with yourself''' 
dated l't March 2010; and 
5. "AGREEMENT on managing a film making process titled 'Rock-n-Ball'" dated 10th 
June 2010. 
Regarding your remuneration for each project, the agreements all establish specific dates 
and amounts for which you would be paid. 
You signed all five of the preceding agreements on page three. The section above your 
signature on each agreement lists your information: 
issued on ..... 17.10.1997 by 
The record of proceeding reflects that your current Ukrainian passport number is 
and that your passport was issued on August 5, 200S. The AAO notes that the 
preceding five agreements were all executed after you had been issued Ukrainian passport 
number_ and they do not correctly identify the valid passport that had been issued 
to you at the time all five agreements were signed. You must submit competent and 
objective documentary evidence overcoming the discrepancies regarding the incorrect 
passport identified in the preceding five agreements. 
The regulation at S C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(5) provides, in part: 
Request for an original document. USCIS may, at any time, request submission of 
an original document for review. The request will set a deadline for submission of 
the original document. Failure to submit the requested original document by the 
--Page 4 
deadline may result in denial or revocation of the underlying application or 
benefit. 
Please submit the "issued 
on 17.1 0.1997 that you used to 
execute the five agreements above. In addition, please submit your original bank 
statements from 2009 - 2011 showing the actual transactions in which you received full 
payment in U.S. dollars in accordance with the dates and amounts specified in Section 4.1 of 
all five agreements. Also, please include proper contact information for your bank so that 
the balances and payment transactions can be verified. 
* * * 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies 
will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 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. [d. at 
591. 
Pursuant to the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(5) and (I6)(i), the petitioner was afforded 33 
days in which to respond to the AAO's notice. The petitioner responded to the AAO's notice with 
evidence passport issue, but she failed to submit the motion picture 
and the original November 11, 2009 
In addition, the petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence showing that she received 
pa:ymem in U.S. dollars in with the dates and amounts in Section 4.1 of the 
agreenaen.ts with Specifically: 
1. The "AGREEMENT on managing a film making process titled 'Occasional record'" 
dated August 15, 2008 identifies the petitioner as "Executive Producer" and states in 
Section 4.1 that "the Customer shall pay the Executive Producer USD 15000.00 (fifteen 
thousand dollars) monthly during the whole film production period, that is 7 (seven) 
months. A total remuneration amount is USD 105 000.00 (one hundred and five 
thousand dollars). The fmal payment date is 01.03.2009 [March 1, 2009]." The 
petitioner failed to submit original bank statements showing that she received the 
preceding payments as specified in the agreement. 
2. The "AGREEMENT on managing a film making process titled 'Rock-n-Ball'" dated 
June 10, 2010 identifies the petitioner as "Executive Producer" and states in Section 4.1 
that "the Customer shall pay the Executive Producer USD 23 000.00 (twenty three 
thousand dollars) monthly during the whole film production period, that is 11 (eleven) 
months. A total remuneration amount is USD 253 000.00 (two hundred fifty three 
thousand dollars). The fmal payment date is 29.04.2011 [April 29, 2011]." The 
--Page 5 
petitioner failed to submit original bank statements showing that she received the 
preceding payments as specified in the agreement. 
Regarding the petitioner's failure to submit the motion picture 
the original of letter, and the original bank statements showing that the petitioner 
received payments as specified in Section 4.1 of the above "Occasional Record" and "Rock-n-Ball" 
agreements, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(5) provides: "Failure to submit the requested 
original document by the deadline may result in denial or revocation of the underlying 
application or benefit." Further, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(13)(i) states: "If the 
petitioner or applicant fails to respond to a request for evidence or to a notice of intent to deny by 
the required date, the application or petition may be summarily denied as abandoned, denied 
based on the record, or denied for both reasons. Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l4) provides: "Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line 
of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the application or petition." Based on the petitioner's 
failure to submit the requested evidence in response to the AAO's notice, this petition cannot be 
approved. 
In an October 31, 2012 letter responding to the AAO, counsel states: 
[The petitioner] is the victim of an unethical paralegal, or notario, that represented that he 
could provide a service that he was to provide. . .. Additionally, [the 
petitioner] is only now learning also submitted documentation in her 
case of which she was unaware, and to which she did not consent. 
* * * 
As discussed at length in the attached declaration of [the pe~ibit 
A), [the petitioner] had a friendly personal relationship with _____ for 
many years before he offered to employ her and file an application for her to receive 
permanent residency in the U.S. in the fall of 2010. 
The contents of the application he filed with uscrs are unknown to [the petitioner]. She 
did not have the opportunity to review or approve the petition. She only signed the 
signature pages presented to her. . .. She was not given any information about the reason 
for the denial. Please note that all from the USCIS was sent to: 
This address matched _ 
Counsel asserts that the contents of the petition "filed with USCIS are unknown to [the 
petitioner]." In addition, the signed declaration submitted by the petitioner alleges that the 
preparer, "did not show me or explain what specific documents he prepared and 
filed with service." Regardless, the petitioner signed the Form 1-140 petition 
November I, 2010, certifying under penalty of perjury that the petition and the submitted 
evidence are all true and correct. See section 287(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(b). The 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(a)(2) provides that "[b]y signing the benefit request, the applicant 
--Page 6 
or petitioner . . . certifies under penalty of perjury that the benefit request, and all evidence 
submitted with it, either at the time of filing or thereafter, is true and correct." (Emphasis 
added). The actual signature portion of the Form 1-140 at part 8 requires the petitioner to make 
the following affirmation: "I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States 
of America, that this petition and the evidence submitted with it are all true and correct." On that 
basis alone, the petitioner must be held responsible for any material misrepresentations contained 
within the record of proceeding. The petitioner cannot at the appellate stage of these proceedings 
simply disavow knowledge of the problematic documentation while at the same time maintaining 
that the remaining documentation in the record which is "unknown" to her supports a finding of 
eligibility. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may 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. at 59l. 
If the petitioner was unaware of the documents and information submitted in support of her own 
petition, then this failure to apprise herself constitutes deliberate avoidance and does not absolve 
her of responsibility for the content of his petition or the materials submitted in support. See 
Hanna v. Gonzales, 128 Fed. Appx. 478, 480 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (an applicant who 
signed his application for adjustment of status but who disavowed knowledge of the actual 
contents of the application because a friend filled out the application on his behalf was still 
charged with knowledge of the application's contents). The law generally does not recognize 
deliberate avoidance as a defense to misrepresentation. See Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 
1289, 1301 (11 th Cir. 2005); United States v. Puente, 982 F.2d 156, 159 (5th Cir. 1993). To find 
otherwise would have serious negative consequences for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) and the administration of the nation's immigration laws. While potentially 
ineligible aliens might benefit from approval of an invalid petition or application in cases where 
USCIS fails to identify fraud or material misrepresentations, once USCIS does identify the fraud 
or material misrepresentations, these same aliens would seek to avoid the negative consequences 
of the fraud, including denial of the petition or application, a finding of inadmissibility under 
section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act, or even criminal prosecution. 
In addition, the Department of Justice and USCIS frequently prosecute employment-based fraud 
based on a petitioner's forged signature on the employment-based petition. The AAO notes prior 
examples where attorneys have been convicted of various charges, including money laundering and 
immigration fraud, after signing immigration forms for which the alien or employer had no 
knowledge. United States v. O'Connor, 158 F.Supp.2d 697, 710 (E.D. Va. 2001); United States v. 
Kooritzky, Case No. 1:02CR00502 (E.D. Va. December 11,2002). In contrast to those cases, the 
petitioner does not contest that she signed the Form 1-140, and her initial contact with • 
_ for instance, indicates that she was an active participant in the preparation of the 
supporting documentation. For the record includes multiple photographs of the petitioner 
holding awards received by 
Furthermore, even after retaining present counsel and filing 
continued to submit documents. For 
aforementioned 
listing specific 
the petitioner has 
Page 7 
counsel' s !!m~~ I'fJ'Ol1<'''- submission at Exhibit B also includes a letter 
from the "Compensation" and "Date 
Paid" for the "Occasional record, "108 minutes," and "Start with 
yourself' project agreements. Counsel "A of the ~~enl1ents 
is also being submitted which details payments made to [the petitioner] by 
these agreements. This document shows that in 2009 [the earned 
earned, $301,000 .... " [Emphasis added.] The letter from the 
that the petitioner received compensation for "Occasional recurcl" 
under 
she 
lists a "Date Paid" as March 1, 2009. Similarly, the letter states that the petitioner received 
compensation in the amount of $253,000.00 and lists a "Date Paid" as April 29, 
2011. The dates and the from th correspond to 
)roiiect agreements. However, 
despite the AAO's specific request for bank statements from 2009 - 2011 showing the petitioner's 
receipt of the preceding payments, she failed to submit documentary evidence demonstrating that 
received the in accordance with the dates and amounts specified in Section 4.1 of 
project agreements and in the letter from 
As previously discussed, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. 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. ld. at 591. The 
AAO finds it particularly noteworthy that the petitioner failed to submit evidence of bank 
transactions documenting the compensation she allegedly received for her two most lucrative 
project agreements. 
With regard to the remaining agreements and "Start with 
yourself," the petitioner submitted her Citigold statements (checking and savings transactions) 
from August 2010 - October 2011. The petitioner circled in pencil various transactions on the bank 
statements and notated the transactions as compensation from "Deadlock joy," "108 minutes," or 
"Start with yourself." The transaction dates and bank descriptions follow: 
Transactions marked by the petitioner as compensation for "Deadlock joy" 
1. 812711 0 "Deposit" $3,500.00; 
2. 9/8/10 "Incoming Wire Transfer FUNDS TRANSFER" $3,000.00; 
3. 9/30/10 "Incoming Wire Transfer FUNDS TRANSFER" $9,000.00; 
4. 9/30/10 "Transfer from Savings" $9,000.00; 
5. 10112110 "Incoming Wire Transfer FUNDS TRANSFER" $9,000.00; 
6. 11126/1 0 "Incoming Wire Transfer FUNDS TRANSFER" $1,500.00; 
7. 12113110 "Incoming Wire Transfer FUNDS TRANSFER" $10,000.00; and 
8. 5/2/11 "Transfer from Savings" $18,000.00. 
Transactions marked by the petitioner as compensation for "108 minutes" 
Page 8 
1. 10/14/10 "Transfer from Savings" $10,000.00; 
2. 10126/10 "Transfer from Savings" $2,000.00; 
3. 10/26/10 "Incoming Wire Transfer FUNDS TRANSFER" $3,000.00; 
4. 11112/10 "Incoming Wire Transfer FUNDS TRANSFER" $900.00; 
5. 11123/10 "Other Credit" $1,050.00; 
6. 11126/10 "Transfer from Savings" $600.00; 
7. 11129/10 "Transfer on 11128from Savings" $700.00; and 
8. 8/2111 "Incoming Wire Transfer FUNDS TRANSFER" $3,000.00. 
Transactions marked by the petitioner as compensation for "Start with yourself' 
1. 3/3/11 "Deposit Teller" $2,400.00; 
2. 3/10111 "Deposit Teller" $2,200.00; 
3. 3/31111 "Deposit Teller" $2,000.00; 
4. 4/6/11 "Deposit Teller" $1,000.00; 
5. 4/18/11 "Incoming Wire Transfer FUNDS TRANSFER" $1,000.00; 
6. 6/6/11 "Transfer from Savings" $500.00; 
7. 6ntll "Deposit Teller" $3,000.00; 
8. 6/29/11 "Deposit Teller" $2,000.00; 
9. 8/15/11 "Incoming Wire Transfer FUNDS TRANSFER" $400.00; and 
10. 8/22111 "Incoming Wire Transfer FUNDS TRANSFER" $1,500.00. 
[Emphasis added.] 
With regard to the above bank transactions identified by the petitioner, the AAO cannot conclude 
that the multiple "Transfer from Savings" transactions constitute compensation paid to the 
petitioner. Instead, the "Transfer from Savings" transactions reflect instances where the petitioner 
transferred money directly from her Citigold savings account to her Citigold checking account. The 
petitioner's attempt to claim the ''Transfer from Savings" transactions as compensation for working 
on the aforementioned projects is disingenuous. Moreover, the payment source of the incoming 
wire transfers, the bank teller deposits, and the "Other Credit" is not specifically identified. 
The "AGREEMENT on managing a film making process titled __ (dated March 4, 
2(09) identifies the petitioner as "Executive Producer" and states ~at "the Customer 
shall pay the Executive Producer USD 9 000.00 (nine thousand dollars) monthly during the whole 
film production period, that is 6 (six) months. A total remuneration amount is USD 54000.00 (fifty 
four thousand dollars). The fmal payment date is 11.09.2009 [September 9,2009]." Excluding the 
"Transfer from Savings" transactions, the petitioner's total compensation for "Deadlock joy" 
amounts to only $27,000.00. Further, the dates and the amounts of the bank transactions submitted 
by the petitioner do not conform to the payment terms set forth in the project agreement. 
The "AGREEMENT on managing a film making process titled '108 minutes'" (dated October I, 
2(09) identifies the petitioner as "Executive Producer" and states in Section 4.1 that "the Customer 
shall pay the Executive Producer USD 8 000.00 (eight thousand dollars) monthly during the whole 
film production period, that is 4 (four) months. A total remuneration amount is USD 32 000.00 
Page 9 
(thirty two thousand dollars). The fmal payment date is 22.02.2010 [February 22, 2010]." 
Excluding the "Transfer from Savings" transactions, the petitioner's total compensation for "108 
minutes" amounts to only $7,950.00. Further, the dates and the amounts of the bank transactions 
submitted by the petitioner do not conform to the payment terms set forth in the project agreement. 
The "AGREEMENT on managing a film making process titled 'Start with yourself" (dated March 
1, 2010) identifies the petitioner as "Executive Producer" and states in Section 4.1 that "the 
Customer shall pay the Executive Producer USD 8 000.00 (eight thousand dollars) monthly during 
the whole film production period, that is 2 (two) months. A total remuneration amount is USD 
16000.00 (sixteen thousand dollars). The fmal payment date is 30.05.2010 [May 30, 2010]." 
Excluding the ''Transfer from Savings" transactions, the petitioner's total compensation for "Start 
with yourself' amounts to only $15,500.00. Further, the dates and the amounts of the bank 
transactions submitted by the petitioner do not conform to the payment terms set forth in the project 
agreement. 
With regard to the aforementioned discrepancies noted by the AAO, as previously stated, it is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice 
unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. The remaining documentation and the director's bases of 
denial will be discussed below. The AAO notes that the petitioner's failure to submit independent 
and objective evidence to overcome the derogatory information discussed above seriously 
compromises the credibility of the petitioner and the remaining documentation. As previously 
noted, doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. [d. at 
591. Regardless, the AAO will address the director's fmding that the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate that she meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the 
basic eligibility requirements. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO 
will uphold the director's decision. 
1. 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, 
Page \0 
(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. 
uscrs 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 10Ist 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) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USc/S, 580 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in 
part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the 
petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given 
evidentiary criterion.' With respect to the criteria at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court 
concluded that while uscrs may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a 
subsequent "fmal merits determination." [d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." !d. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a fmal merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner 
has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. [d. 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 11 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director discussed the specific evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion and found that 
the petitioner had failed to establish her eligibility. In the appellate brief dated September 30, 
2011, counsel states: "While [the petitioner] believes she meets this criterion and submitted 
sufficient evidence therefore, she is not able at this time to obtain the necessary evidence to 
overcome the objections raised by USCIS." Counsel's statement acknowledges that the petitioner 
is not able to overcome the director's findings for this criterion. Further, counsel fails to identify 
any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the director's analysis. The director has already 
addressed the petitioner's previous claims in detail. While the appellate brief expresses the 
petitioner's general disagreement with the director's determination, it does not point to any 
specific error in the director's analysis for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and 
offers no directed argument to focus the AAO on a particular area for review. Given the absence 
of a specific discussion regarding the issue contested, the AAO considers this issue to be 
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. 30, 2011) (the court 
found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Furthermore, a passing reference without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that ground 
on appeal. Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 Fed.Appx. 433,435 (11 th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
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 discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner had 
failed to establish her eligibility. The director found that the petitioner's memberships in the 
Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (New York), the Producers Guild of America, Film 
Independent, the American Film Institute, and the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television 
had not been shown to require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. In the appellate brief dated September 30, 2011, 
counsel states: "While [the petitioner] believes she meets this criterion and submitted sufficient 
evidence therefore, she is not able at this time to obtain the necessary evidence to overcome the 
objections raised by USCIS." Counsel's statement acknowledges that the petitioner is not able to 
overcome the director's findings for this criterion. Further, counsel fails to identify any 
erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the director's analysis. The director has already addressed 
3 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 12 
the petitioner's previous claims in detail. While the appellate brief expresses the petitioner's 
general disagreement with the director's determination, it does point to any specific error in the 
director's analysis for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and offers no 
directed argument to focus the AAO on a particular area for review. Given the absence of a 
specific discussion regarding the issue contested, the AAO considers the petitioner's 
aforementioned membership claims to be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 
2011 WL 4711885. at *9. Furthermore, a passing reference without substantive arguments is 
insufficient to raise that ground on appeal. Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 Fed.Appx. at 435. 
In response to the AAO's October I, 2012 notice of derogatory information, the petitioner asserts 
that her membership in the Association of Producers of Ukraine (APU) meets the eligibility 
requirements for this regulatory criterion. The petitioner submits a letter from the APU dated 
01.11.2010 stating that she joined the association in 2009. The petitioner also submits for the 
first time in these proceedings a copy of the APU's bylaws in the Ukrainian language. The 
November 8, 2011 English language translation accompanying the APU's bylaws was not 
certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). Any document 
containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English 
language translation that 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. Id. The AAO notes that the petitioner did not claim eligibility based on her APU 
membership at the time of filing the petition or in response to the director's request for evidence. 
With regard to the APU bylaws now submitted by the petitioner more than a year after filing the 
appeal, the AAO notes that the director requested evidence pertaining to the petitioner's 
memberships on November 12, 2010. As the petitioner had the opportunity to submit her APU 
membership documentation in response to the director's request for evidence, the AAO will not 
accept not accept the APU bylaws offered for the first time on appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 
I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires 
"membership in associations" in the plural. The use of the plural is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(I)(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 "Ietter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that 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). Therefore, even if the petitioner were to establish that her 
membership in the APU meets the elements of this regulatory criterion, which she has not, the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires evidence of the petitioner's 
Page 13 
membership in more than one association requiring outstanding achievements of its members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts. None of the other memberships 
submitted earlier by the petitioner meets these requirements. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. The 
petitioner submitted documentation indicating that Oy Vey! My Son is Gay was screened at 
various film festivals. On motion, the director found that the preceding documentation was 
sufficient to meet the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The submitted evidence, however, does not indicate the specific artistic 
aspects of the petitioner's original work as a producer that were on display. Further, as 
previously discussed in the AAO's October I, 2012 notice of derogatory information, the 
Internet Movie Database, a comprehensive online database of information related to films, does 
not list the petitioner in the "full cast and crew" credits as having even produced the film. See 
hup://www.imdb.comltitle/tt1223082/fullcredits#cast. accessed on September 13, 2012, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof 
may 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. at 591. Despite the AAO's request for 
evidence, the petitioner failed to submit the motion picture DVD for Oy Vey! My Son is Gay 
showing that her name was listed as a producer in the film's credits. Instead, the petitioner 
submits a signed declaration stating: 
USCIS . . . states that there was 
producer and executive producer on 
was the writer & producer of that started when he 
contacted me in the Ukraine in 2009 and asked me to join the production. He told me 
that if I helped to raise money to complete the film, which is one of the functions of a 
producer, that I would receive an "Executive Producer" credit on the film. I fulfilled my 
obligation and raised the funds from investors in the Ukraine. However, to my 
knowledge, never followed through on his promise to give me the credit. 
It does not appear on the DVD. I figured it was just an oversight on his part. 
The petitioner's statement indicates that she "helped to raise money to complete the film," but 
her statement does not explain how she contributed artistically to the production or specify what 
part of her work was on display. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii) requires "[elvidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases." Raising funds from investors in the Ukraine does not satisfy the 
regulatory requirements set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The AAO notes that the ten 
criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to 
every occupation. The interpretation that 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts 
is longstanding and has been upheld by a federal district court. Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-
-Page 14 
820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding an interpretation that performances 
by a performing artist do not fall under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)). As the petitioner is not a 
visual artist and has not created tangible pieces of art that were on display at exhibitions or 
showcases, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that she 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 AAO withdraws the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. The 
petitioner submitted letters of and indicating that she served as a 
producer for the motion On motion, the director found that 
the preceding documentation was language requirements of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The plain language of this regulatory criterion, 
however, requires "[e]vidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation" (emphasis added). The 
petitioner has failed to demonstrate how a motion picture film equates to an "organization" or 
"establishment." Regardless, as previously discussed, the Internet Movie Database does not list 
the petitioner in the "full cast and crew" credits as having even produced the film. See 
http://www.imdb.comJ title/tt1223082/fullcredits#cast, accessed on September 13, 2012, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Despite the 
AAO's for evidence, the petitioner failed to submit the motion picture DVD for 0.'. Vey! 
showing that her name was listed as a producer in the film's credits. The 
peltitilDnc~r states that she "helped to raise money to complete the film," but there is no evidence 
demonstrating that her role was leading or critical relative to that of the fifteen other producers 
who worked on the film and who were actually identified in the film's credits. The 
documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that she was responsible for the 
preceding film's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical 
role." Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.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. As previously discussed, the use of the plural is 
consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act. Without evidence demonstrating that she has performed in a leading or critical role for at 
least two distinguished organizations or establishments, the petitioner has not established that she 
meets the plain language requirements of 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. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's various project agreements 
meet this regulatory criterion. Counsel also points to the letter from the 
Page 15 
~~ •••• i~ ••• t~~a~ and "Date Paid" for the "Occasional record," _ 
• "Peace atom," and "Start with yourself' agreements. 
Counsel states: "A agJreelments is also being submitted which details payments 
made to [the petitioner] by under these agreements. This document shows that in 
2009 [the petitioner] earned $159,000, in 20lO she earned, $301,000, and in 2011 she has so far 
earned $15,000." Despite the AAO's request for bank statements from 2009 - 2011 showing the 
petitioner's actual receipt of the preceding payments, she failed to submit documentary evidence 
demonstrating that she received the dates and amounts 
specified in Section 4.1 of agreements and in the letter 
from the cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may 
lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition. Matter oJ Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. 
With regard to the project agreements for 
the petitioner submitted her Citigold checking and savings account statements August 20 lO -
October 2011. The petitioner circled in pencil various transactions on the bank sta~ 
notated the transactions as compensation from or_ 
__ With regard to the bank transactions identified by the petitioner, the AAO cannot 
conclude that the multiple ''Transfer from Savings" transactions constitute compensation paid to the 
petitioner. Instead, the ''Transfer from Savings" transactions reflect instances where the petitioner 
transferred money directly from her Citigold savings account to her Citigold checking account. In 
addition, the payment source of the incoming wire transfers, the bank teller deposits, and the "Other 
Credit" is not specifically identified. Moreover, the dates and the arnounts of the bank transactions 
identified the do not conform to the payment ;nf.nrrr 
the and the letter from 
As previously discussed, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the 
record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such 
inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. Id. at 591-92. 
August 29, 2011 letter from 
the "average rate of salary of the staff 
ml:mlber on of economic activity category 'Real estate transactions, lease engineering, 
producing activity and rendering of services to entrepreneurs' within [Kiev] for the period from 
January till July 2011." The English language translation accompanying the preceding letter was 
not certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § lO3.2(b)(3). Further, the 
petitioner must submit evidence of objective earnings data showing that she has earned a "high 
salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in comparison with those performing similar work. 
See Matter oj Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional 
golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. U.S. Dept. oj Homeland 
Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding average salary information for those 
performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the field); 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). Average salary data for the occupational categories specified 
Page 16 
in the preceding letter from do not constitute appropriate 
bases for comparison with the petitioner's film and television production work. The petitioner 
also submits 2008 median annual wage data for producers from the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook. The 2008 median annual wage data for producers do not present 
a timely basis for comparison in demonstrating that the petitioner's 2009 - 2011 alleged 
compensation constitutes significantly high remuneration. Moreover, the petitioner must submit 
evidence showing that she has earned a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in 
relation to others in her particular field, not simply remuneration that is above average for a group 
of occupations or that places her in the top half of producers in her field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's various agreements 
this regulatory criterion. Counsel also points to the letter from the 
that lists the and the 
Jroj'ect agreements. 
Counsel states: "All of these projects can be considered commercial successes as their profits far 
exceeded the budgets spent to create The however, has not resolved the 
inconsistencies in the record relating to project agreements. As previously 
discussed, it is incumbent upon the any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will 
not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth 
lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Regardless, this regulatory criterion focuses on 
volume of "sales" and "box office receipts" as a measure of the petitioner's commercial success 
in the performing arts. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner may have raised funds for a 
film or television show that returned a modest profit by industry standards would be insufficient, 
in and of itself, to meet this regulatory criterion. With regard to the preceding projects, the 
petitioner has failed to submit documentary evidence of "sales" or "receipts" or some other 
equivalent quantitative form of measurement showing that she has achieved commercial 
successes in the performing arts. Further, there is no documentary evidence showing that the 
commercial success of the aforementioned projects was primarily attributable to the petitioner's 
specific work. 
The petitioner also submits an August 31, 2011 letter from 
professional basketball player, discussing various projects 
the submits an 2011 letter from 
"«.1",," or 
successes in the performing arts. 
discussmg 
Neither of the preceding letters provides information on 
receipts" as a measure of the petitioner's commercial 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
--Page 17 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
C. Comparable Evidence Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) 
[The petitioner's] professional qualities never stop surprising me. She is so special and 
talented that one can only wonder where the source of her inspiration lies. [The 
petitioner] never repeats herself and never uses any standard solutions. She is one of 
those few people who always work with complete dedication. She always takes into 
consideration her customers' wishes, but she also adds a special zest to each of her 
projects, which makes the project quite special and unique. 
[The petitioner] is a very sociable person with excellent organizational skills. She 
organizes the film-making process in such a way that it goes on in a friendly atmosphere 
and all the goals she sets are reached just in time and in the best way possible. [The 
petitioner's] leadership skills combined with her humanness and responsiveness make her 
a favorite with any team. 
[The petitioner] is a highest -class professional. I know very few people in the film 
industry who can be placed at such a high level as she. She has a remarkable, many­
sided talent, her incredible erudition and competence let her remain the leading figure in 
any project, the person who influences all the solutions, both small and large ones. [The 
petitioner] can definitely be called a filmmaking trailblazer. 
and 
Counsel asserts the preceding letter from should be considered as cOlnparable 
evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4). The AAO notes that 
first name is spelled differently in the first sentence of his letter_ and in the of 
the Iette~ Further, the text of the letter appears in mUltiple fonts with 
different sizes and line spacing. While expresses admiration for the petitioner's 
personal attributes, he fails to provide specific examples of the petitioner's objective 
achievements in the filmmaking industry. Regardless, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) 
allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten categories of evidence "do 
not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." Thus, it is the petitioner's burden to 
demonstrate why the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are not readily applicable to the 
alien's occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the specific objective 
evidence required at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). The regulatory language precludes the 
consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for 
visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified 
by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In fact, as indicated in this decision, the petitioner 
Page 18 
submitted evidence that specifically addresses more than half of the categories of evidence set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to satisfy the 
plain language requirements of at least three categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Counsel does not explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to the petitioner's 
occupation. Moreover, counsel fails to explain how the letter of support from IS 
"comparable" to any specific objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). 
While recommendation letters can provide useful information about an alien's qualifications or help 
in assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters are not comparable to extensive evidence of the 
alien's achievements and recognition as required by the statute and regulations. The nonexistence 
of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2)(i). The 
classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international 
acclaim. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing the statute provide that 
the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected 
in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that 
required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Primary evidence of 
achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than opinion statements from 
references selected by the petitioner. Furthermore, 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 does not purport to be 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 a producer who has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her 
field. 
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 the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had 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[irJ 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 
Page 19 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need 
not explain that conclusion in a fmal merits deterrnination.4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. 
[d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DO}, 381 F.3d 143. 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a fmal merits detennination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 CFR § 1035(a)(l)(ii). See also section 103(a)(I) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2(03); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 c.F.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).