dismissed EB-1A Case: Finance

U.S. Departnicr~t of Hanicland Securit) 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdmrnrs/m/rve Appeals MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: m Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 0 5 2010 
SRC 09 033 54629 
R\1 RE: 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. jj 1 1 53(b)(l )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. jj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks 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. 5 1 1 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate receipt of a 
major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) and that the director applied incorrect standards in denying the petition. 
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 Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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). The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on November 13, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in the field of finance. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "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). 
We note that although the record contains evidence of the petitioner's prior approval as an 0-1 non- 
immigrant, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant 
petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See e.g. Q Data 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. 
Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). 
Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant 
petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. 
INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 
WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an 
extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is 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 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1 988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's 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 had approved the 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), af'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
As aforementioned, each petition must be adjudicated on its own merits under the statutory provisions 
and regulations which apply. Thus, the petitioner's eligibility will be evaluated under the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3) relating to the immigrant classification as claimed by the petitioner. 
Page 4 
Published material about the alien in professional or mujor trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien 's work in the.field for which classification is sought. Such 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulation, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.' 
The petitioner provided the following evidence to satisfy this criterion: 
1. An article entitled, "Global Funds Industry Shifting East," dated October 27, 2008, written 
by in the Asian Investor; 
2. An article entitled, "Traditionals to gain as Alternatives Falter," dated October 26, 2008, 
written bv in FT com; 
3. An article entit e "Asia's army of Investors Rides In," dated July 7, 2008, written by = 
in FTfm; 
4. An article entitled, "Asia Funds could hit $8 trillion in five years," dated November 13,2007, 
written b-in the Asian Investor; 
5. Background information regarding the Asian Investor from wwv.asianii~veslor.net; 
6. An article entitled, "Legg Mason Citibank Team to Offer Funds to Chinese Investors," dated 
February 1 1,2008, written by in \vcvcv.invcstmentncu-s.m; 
7. Background information regarding the InvestmentNews from www.investmentne~vs.con~, 
which indicates that it has a subscriber base of 60,000; 
8. An article entitled, "Turner Sets Sights Overseas with Ucits Launch," dated August 5, 2008 - 
written by in u MU .ignites.com; 
9. An article entitled, "Firms Tweak Sales Efforts to Meet Distributor Changes," dated June 12, 
2006, written by in fund action; 
10. An article entitled, "Europe's Fund Market Topped by UBS," dated March 6, 2006, without 
an author in fund action; 
11. An article entitled, "Time to Look Abroad," dated April 21, 2003, written by - 
in Global Investor; and 
12. An article entitled, "Bill Miller Superstar," dated January 12, 2006, written by - 
Narat in ~~v~v.hri~ld~'lsI~latt,con~, written in German. 
No new evidence was submitted on appeal regarding this criterion. In addition, the petitioner's 
appeal brief did not argue that this criterion was applicable. 
' Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 5 
In his decision, the director found that the petitioner failed to satisfy this criterion, indicating that 
none of the evidence provided qualified as "about the alien." Moreover, the director found that the 
articles provided failed to "discuss the merits of the petitioner's work" or "the petitioner's standing 
in the field." We concur with his decision, finding also that the articles were not primarily about the 
petitioner, as the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires. The articles were instead about 
financial markets, primarily the Asian markets, with the petitioner offering his opinions regarding such 
topics. 
Moreover, the record contained limited and inadequate evidence to prove that the various 
publications were professional or major trade publications or some other form of major media. Whle 
items 5 and 7 contained some background information regarding two of the publications, such 
information came directly from each publication's own website. Moreover, only item 7 even included 
the circulation statistics for its particular publication. Further, there was no independent evidence to 
support that either of these two publications, or any of the other sources, were professional or major 
trade publications or some other form of major media. 
This criterion also specifically requires that the evidence submitted must contain a title, date, author and 
translation, if necessary. Item 10 failed to include an author. In addition, the translation for item 12 
was omitted. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(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. As the article contained in item 12 
failed to follow such requirement, it was not considered. 
For all of the above stated reasons, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied$eld of specjfication.for which classification is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability 
must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight 
given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends 
on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "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. § 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a national competition in 
finance is of far greater probative value than judging a local competition for novices. 
Page 6 
The petitioner initially provided evidence of his participation as an expert panelist at various 
conferences including, but not limited to, the ICBI conferences and the Emerging Markets Product 
Innovation Summit. In addition, the petitioner provided his entire Powerpoint presentation for the 
Fundforum Distribution Summit in Barcelona. No further evidence was provided on appeal, and the 
petitioner did not claim he satisfied this criterion in his appeal brief. 
In his decision, the director found that the petitioner failed to fulfill this criterion. We agree with the 
finding of the director. It is clear from the evidence provided by the petitioner that he served only as 
a speaker, either in the capacity as a primary presenter or as part of a panel. These conferences that 
the petitioner participated are not represented as competitions or other type of event where the 
petitioner was expected to review or judge the work of others. Even if these conferences could be 
characterized as competitions, the record lacks evidence establishing the level of prestige associated 
with speaking at such conferences, the requirements necessary to serve as a speaker, and the names 
of any other financiers in which he evaluated and/or their levels of expertise or other evidence of his 
speaking that is indicative of this highly restrictive classification. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted recommendation letters from his colleagues including; - 
a Senior Counsellor for the World Bank, an Investment Director of AXISS 
Founder and Managing Director of Sage & Hermes, ~td.,l 
Investments, Managing Director of the German 
Investment and Asset Management Association and Senior Project Manager of 
Vontobel Asset ~ana~ement 
On appeal, no new evidence was provided. However, the petitioner's appeal brief argued that the 
previously provided letters support his contention that he made original contributions of major 
Specifically, the petitioner's brief highlighted the letter written by - 
which credits the petitioner for developing a "worldwide database of detailed mutual fund 
asset and flow information" and for creating "monthly quantitative and qualitative analyses of the 
global mutual fund industry." The brief stated that the petitioner's contributions also include 
"research, analysis and promotion of Australia's mutual fund industry" and "seminal publications of 
guides to mutual funds globally, in Asia and the Middle East and in Israel." 
The burden is on the petitioner to establish the significance of his work. To satis@ the criterion relating 
to original contributions of major significance, the petitioner must demonstrate not only that his work is 
novel and useful, but also that it has attracted sustained attention, had a demonstrable impact on his field 
at the national or international level or other commensurate evidence. The petitioner has not shown, for 
instance, how the field has changed as a result of his work so as to establish it was a contribution of 
major significance to his field. 
Page 7 
Moreover, although the reference letters provided by the petitioner contain useful information about his 
qualifications and help in assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters are not a substitute for 
objective evidence of the alien's achievements and recognition as required by the statute and 
regulations. Letters from colleagues or letters that do not specifically identify contributions or how 
these contributions have influenced the field are insufficient to meet this criterion. Kazarian v. USCIS, 
580 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009). Primary evidence of achievements and recognition is of far greater 
probative value than the opinions of one's professional acquaintances. 
As discussed above, the petitioner has failed to establish how his work has influenced his field and 
how it is considered to have been a contribution of major significance to his field. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted the following as evidence of his authorship: 
1. Lists of other published authors in the periodical entitled Gewerkschuflliche Monatshefle, 
including 
2. An article entitled, 'written by the petitioner in Gewerkschaftliche 
MonatsheJie with a certified ~n~lish translation, dated 1999; 
3. A 2008 report entitled, "Global Fund Distribution: Best Practices, Key Trends, and 
opportunities to Grow Sales Worldwide," written by the petitioner, which appears to be LA * 
published by the petitioner's employer,- 
A 
4. A 2007 report entitled, "Asia Fund Management and Middle East Opportunities: Investing in 
the ~uturej' written by the petitioner, which also appears to be by- 
5. A Guide to Israel Mutual Funds, wherein the petitioner wrote the first chapter, published by 
Israel Funds Observer; 
6. Information regarding the Handleszeitung, a Swiss financial journal, without a source; 
7. Various articles written by the petitioner and published in the Handleszeitung, which appear to 
be published in 2001 and 2002, without any English translation; 
8. An article written by the petitioner in the Investment Management Review, which is published 
by Sage & Hermes; and . - 
9. A recommendation letter from ~anagin~ Director of Sage & 
Hermes, which confirms the petitioner's work in item 8. 
On appeal, the petitioner provided the following three additional reference letters: 
10. A letter from the Director of Economics and Research at the European Fund and Asset 
Management Association, dated May 28, 2009, that indicated the petitioner published two 
significant pieces, referring to items 3 and 4; 
11. A-letter from the ~xecutiie Vice President and Director of Research for 
May 26,2009, that discussed the petitioner's contribution towards item 5; d an 
dated 
Page 8 
12. A letter from, dated May 25, 2009, stating 
the significance of items 3 and 4. 
In order to determine the nature and significance of a petitioner's publications, we often evaluate a 
citation history or other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's articles when determining their 
significance to the field. Kazarian v. USCIS at 1030 (mere publication is insufficient absent evidence 
that the articles constitute contributions of major significance). The petitioner failed to provide any 
articles in which his articles were cited, and therefore he failed to demonstrate that his articles were 
frequently cited in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner 
only provided reference letters to bolster the claim that his publications were significant. However, 
such recommendation letters do not establish that the petitioner's works have been relied upon or 
cited to the extent that the impact of the articles is commensurate with a finding that the petitioner 
has achieved sustained national or international acclaim in his field. In fact, the petitioner's appeal 
brief contends that: 
Much of financial industry research is the analysis of data and projection of future 
profits and outcomes, thus there is no need to cite past articles, as this information 
will already be stale and unusable. 
This statement further confirms that the articles written by the petitioner are not consistent with 
"sustained" national or international acclaim. While it may be true that the financial industry 
publishes a plethora of articles whose statistics are no longer relevant, if the petitioner's articles were 
truly innovative or significant, they would still be cited to in a manner consistent with "sustained" 
national or international acclaim. 
In addition, the petitioner failed to provide evidence to show that his publications appeared in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. Items 3 or 4 were published by the 
petitioner's employer, so it is unclear whether such publications were distributed or circulated outside of 
the corporation in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner's 
brief argued that "publication is not inherent to all researchers" and that "most accurate researchers, 
carefully guard their in-house research, and use the information only internally to advise other 
departments and their client bases." As such, the petitioner should have provided evidence that his 
works, especially the reports published by his employer, were in fact distributed outside of the 
company. However, there was no evidence, aside from recommendation letters and a list of other 
authors who wrote for the publisher in item 1, that would support a finding that the petitioner's works 
were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Moreover, the petitioner failed to provide translations for the articles contained in item 7. Pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(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. Because the petitioner failed to submit certified translations for these items, 
the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. tj 
103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, this evidence is not probative. 
Page 9 
As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner, in his initial brief, claimed that he performed a critical role for his employers, 
and the The petitioner submitted reference letters, which discussed his 
work, in an attempt to fulfill this criterion. On appeal, in addition to citing to these various 
recommendation letters, the petitioner also points to a lengthy statement by the petitioner himself 
describing his role at that he believes supports his case. However, 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 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The director found that the petitioner failed to satis@ this criterion, and we agree. In order to establish 
that the petitioner performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire 
organization or establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. There was 
little discussion of his role or responsibilities within either organization. Similarly, there is no 
evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's role differentiated him from the others where he worked. - 
For instance, as it relates to his position within the petitioner did not submit evidence 
such as an organizational chart which demonstrates the petitioner's position within the organization as a 
whole and whether he was the only managing director of a unit within Mere title, 
without specific information regarding actual duties or explanation of relevance or importance of that 
position within the hierarchy of the organization's management is not sufficient to establish the 
petitioner's leading or critical role at~s it relates to his role with the the 
petitioner indicated he "collaborated with a team of professionals." He provides no evidence to 
differentiate his role from that of other team members. Therefore, while the petitioner may have proven 
that he provided valuable services to his past employers, he has failed to support the proposition that he 
has performed a leading or critical role for the organization. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijcantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the-field. 
The petitioner did not initially claim this criterion applied to him. However, he submitted Wage and 
Tax Statements ("W-2") for 2007, 2006 and 2005. The W-2 for 2007 indicated that the petitioner 
earned approximately $180,000. 
On appeal, the petitioner's brief argued that he had fulfilled this criterion. The petitioner submitted his 
W-2 for 2008 indicating that the petitioner had an income of approximately $270,000. 
Page 10 
The petitioner also submitted an excerpt from the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center's website on 
appeal, which indicated that the comparable salaries of "financial managers." He argued that the 
highest salary on the website was still lower than the petitioner's prior salaries in 2007 and 2008. 
However, this website only provides information regarding the salaries of financial managers, which is 
an overly broad category. The website also fails to offer a basis of comparison that the petitioner's 
salary is significantly high in comparison to other managing directors in his field. A letter from 
Executive Vice President at 
h 
the petitioner's employer, was also 
provided. In his letter, indicated that t e petitioner was given a $60,000 salary 
increase in 2008 and a $70,000 bonus. Further, he stated that the petitioner was "the only employee 
at who was given such a dramatic salary increase last year." This letter appears to compare the 
petitioner only to his coworkers. There is no indication that the petitioner has earned a level of 
compensation that places him among the highest paid managing directors "in relation to others in his 
field" in Germany, the United States or any other country. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Counsel argues that the petitioner's participation and/or presentations at many conferences are 
comparable evidence of the petitioner's extraordinary ability in his field. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria "do not 
readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes the consideration 
of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no evidence 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. 5 204.5(h)(3) of which the petitioner has claimed that he meets four. Where an alien is simply 
unable to meet three of the regulatory criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Moreover, there is no evidence showing that the documentation the petitioner requests evaluation of 
as comparable evidence constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of his field. The petitioner failed to provide evidence for any 
of these engagements regarding the type of audience who attended these presentations, the number 
of attendees, or the selection criteria for the presenters. At best, these presentations are comparable 
to the publication of an article in a scholarly journal or original contribution of major significance, as 
it amounts to the dissemination of technical information to a specialized audience. As such, the 
evidence does not demonstrate that the petitioner's participation in these conferences conveyed 
national or international acclaim or that his participation in such events made a contribution of major 
significance to his field. While the presentations may attest to his originality, the record lacks 
evidence of the impact his work has had on the field as a whole. The nonexistence of required 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, the classification 
sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 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). 
Page 11 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Moreover, counsel contends on appeal that the director violated 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8) by failing to 
request further evidence before denying the petition. The cited regulation requires the director to 
request additional evidence in instances "where there is no evidence of ineligibility, and initial 
evidence or eligibility information is missing." Id. The director is not required to issue a request for 
further information in every potentially deniable case. If the director determines that the initial 
evidence supports a decision of denial, the cited regulation does not require solicitation of further 
documentation. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at the national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.