dismissed EB-1A Case: Flair Bartending

~dentihbg data dcletsd to 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: JUL 1. -8 ?()@ 
EAC 05 150 52001 
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. 5 11 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
? Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice 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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on April 28, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
performer bartender. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation ofthe alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate stating that he was a "1" Place Winner" at the "Banvarz on the Hudson 
2004" competition in Jersey City, New Jersey. This award, however, reflects local recognition rather than 
national or international recognition. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from ~ounder and Chief Executive Officer of 
Cocktailshows Entertainment, stating: "This letter is to confirm that [the petitioner] has been selected all 
times legend Turkish Flair Bartender by www.cocktailshows.com. . . . We have given this title to [the 
petitioner] because of his previous achievements and being a greate [sic] ambassador for our sport of flair and 
for Turkey." There is no evidence of national publicity surrounding this award or evidence showing that it 
commanded a significant level of recognition beyond the presenting organization. The petitioner has not 
submitted the "extensive documentation" required by the statute to establish that selection for this title 
constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence. 
The petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the4eld for which clmsification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in the 
regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualifL as major 
media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not earn 
acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication or from a publication in a language that most 
of the population cannot comprehend. 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 submitted two photographs of himself appearing on page 59 of a magazine entitled Bars and 
Clubs: North Jersey's Hottest Nightlfe. A caption above one of the petitioner's photographs states: 
"Congratulations to the winners of the 2004 Banvarz Competition." The material submitted, however, does 
not identify the petitioner by name, nor does it offer a discussion of his work. Further, there is no evidence 
showing that this publication had significant national or international readership. Therefore, the petitioner has 
not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate he meets at 
least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). 
Beyond the regulatory criteria, the petitioner submitted several letters of support. 
- 
President and Chief Executive Officer, Flair Bartenders' Association, Inc. (FBA), states: 
-- - 
1 
 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, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Being from Turkey, [the petitioner] possesses a passion and artistically unique style not present in the 
USA. [The petitioner] has placed extremely well in our world bartender championships. In the past 
he has been awarded for exceptionally good individual rounds. 
The FBA is in need of competitors like [the petitioner] from other countries for all of our events to 
help group our sport here in the USA as well as around the world. [The petitioner] has the rare ability 
to take his incredible skills and use them to make his guests happy at the bar. He would be an asset 
here in the USA as he would help progress our sport to the general public via working behind the bar 
and attending our competitions. He is truly one of a kind and any establishment would be lucky to 
have him on their team. 
The petitioner submitted additional letters of su 
 of Group Media and 
Communications, o an 
 ding.Com, but none of 
these letters were signed. These letters state that the petitioner has participated in various competitions and 
that he is a talented flair bartender. 
Letters of support are not first-hand evidence that the petitioner has earned sustained national or international 
acclaim. Pursuant to the statute and regulations, the classification sought requires documentary evidence of 
sustained national or international acclaim, and the petitioner cannot arbitrarily replace such evidence with 
attestations from the petitioner's associates, who assert that they find the petitioner's abilities to be 
extraordinary. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) requires documentation meeting at least three of the ten 
criteria. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act provides 
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). The criteria require specific documentation beyond 
mere testimony, such as awards, published material about the alien, and evidence of a high salary. While letters 
of support from one's associates may place the evidence for the regulatory criteria in context, they cannot serve as 
primary evidence of the specific achievements required by the regulatory criteria. Further, while the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(4) permits "comparable evidence" where the ten criteria do not "readily apply'' to the alien's 
occupation, the regulation neither states nor implies that letters of support attesting to the alien's standing in the 
field are "comparable" to the strict documentation requirements in the regulations setting forth the ten   rite ria.^ 
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 a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner 
has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
2 
 In the present case, 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. 
Page 5 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.