dismissed EB-1A Case: Food And Beverage Management

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.s. Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U s. (lizenship andimmigradonservice
AdministrauteAppealsOlfice (AAO)
20 Massachuseus Ave.. N.w.. Ms 2(NO
washinwon,Dc 20529.2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE:AUG 1 5 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
13cneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetition for Alien Worker as an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON 13EHALFOF PETITIONER:
1NSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals OITice in your case. AH of the
documentsrelatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto the office that originally decidedyour case. Please
headvisedthatanyfurtherinquiry thatyou mighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If youbelievetheAAO inappropriatelyappliedthelaw in reachingits decision,or youhaveadditional
information that you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopen
in accordancewith theinstructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a feeof S630.The
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresany motionto be filed
within 30 davs of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen.
Th k you, f .
Perry Rhew
Chiel AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Pace2
DISCUSSION: Theemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,Texas
ServiceCenter,onJuly27, 2011,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) on
appeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitioner seeksto classify the beneficiaryas an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto
section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct),8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),as
an alien of extraordinaryability as an assistantdirectorof food and beverage. The director
determinedthatthepetitionerhadnot establishedthebeneficiarv'srequisiteextraordinaryability
andfailedto submitextensivedocumentationof sustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressset a very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiring through the
statutethatthepetitionerdemonstratethebeneficiarys"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim^
andpresent"extensivedocumentation"of his or herachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of
theAct and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)states
thatanaliencanestablishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof aone-time
achievement,specificallya major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchan
award, the regulationoutlines ten categoriesof specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)
through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidenceunder at least three of the ten
regulatorycategoriesofevidencetoestablishthebasiceligibility requirements.
It is notedthatattheinitialfiling of FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealof Motion,counselindicatedin
Part 2, box A that he was "filing an appeal"pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a).
Althoughin Part3 of theform,aswell astheaccompanyingcoverletterandbrief,counselrefersto
a motionto reopenanda motionto reconsiderpursuantto theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a).If
counselintendedto file amotionto reopenandamotionto reconsider,heshouldhavecheckedbox
F in Pari2 of Form1-290B.As counselfiled Form1-290Brequestinganappealof thedirector's
decision,theAAO will treatit asanappeal.Theburdenis noton theAAO to inferor second-guess
counsel's filing intentions. It is further noted that the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(iii)
providesthat "[t]he reviewingofficial shall decidewhetheror not favorableaction is warranted
andthe regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(8)providesthat 1t]he official who deniedanapplication
or petition may treat the appeal from that decision as a motion for the purpose of granting the
motion." As thedirectordeterminedthatfavorableactioncould notbetakenon theappealandshe
couldnot thereforetrealtheappealasamotion.sheforwardedtheappealto theAAO.
On appeal,counselclaims that the beneficiarymeetsat leastthreeof the regulatorycriteria at 8
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(l) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available. . . to qualified
immigrantswho are aliensdescribedin any of the following subparagraphs(A)
through(C):
Page3
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.-- An alienis describedin this
subparagraphif --
(i) thealienhasextraordinaryability in thesciences,
arts,education,business,or athleticswhichhasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednational or international
acclaim and whose achievements have been
recognized in the field through extensive
documentation,
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United Statesto
continuework in theareaof extraordinaryability, and
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill
substantiallybenefitprospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S.Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalization
Service(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthat Congressintendedto seta very high standardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723 101 Cong.,2d
Sess.59 (1990);56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov. 29, 1991). Theterm"extraordinarvabilit
refersonly to thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewho haverisento thevery topof thefield of
endeavor.M; 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requiresthat the petitioner demonstratethe alien's
sustainedacclaimandtherecognitionof his or herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbe
establishedeither throughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(that is, a major, international
recognizedaward)or throughthesubmissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof theten
categoriesof evidencelistedat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010.the U.S.Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewedthe denialof a
petition filed underthis classification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d 1115(9th Cir. 2010).Although
the court upheldthe AAO's decisionto deny the petition, the court took issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meeta givenevidentiarycriterion.' With respectto thecriteria
at 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), the court concludedthat while USCISmay haveraised
legitimateconcernsaboutthe significanceof the evidencesubmittedto meet thosetwo criteria,
thoseconcernsshouldhavebeenraisedin a subsequent"tinal meritsdetermination." Id. at 1121-
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO's evaluationrestedon an improperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry.thecourtstatedthat"the
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantiveor evidentiary requirements
beyondthosesetforthin theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
proper procedureis to count the typesof evidenceprovided (which the AAO did)." and if the
petitionerfailedto submitsuhicientevidence,"the properconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed
to satisfv the reuulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded) Id. at
i 122(citing to 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)).
Thus, Kazarían sets forth a two-part approachwhere the evidenceis first countedand then
consideredin thecontextof a final meritsdetermination. In this matter,theAAO will review the
evidenceundertheplain languagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed. As thepetitionerdid not
submitqualifying evidenceunderat leastthreecriteria,the properconclusionis that the petitioner
hasfailed to satisfy theregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
11.ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentation of the alien s receipt of lesser nationally or internationaHy
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
In the director's decision.he determinedthat the petitioner failed to establishthe beneticiary's
eligibility for thiscriterion.Onappeal,counselclaims:
[The beneficiary]hasbeentherecipientof numerousawardsandprizesrecognizing
his outstandingachievements.Underhis leadershipasthemanagerof its flagship
restaurant,[the petitioner]achievedthe highly sought-afterAAA Five Diamond
AwardandtheMobil FourStarAward. Additionally.therestaurantMaestrothathe
managedreceivednumeroustop-echelonratings from the authoritativerestaurant
reviewguide,Zagat.
* * *
The restaurant Maestro that [the beneficiary] managed [for the petitioncr] was
awardedeitherthefirst or secondranking for Service(whichwasclearlymanaged
by [the beneficiary] as the RestaurantManager)out of every restaurantin the
Washington. DC area, including Baltimore, Maryland, Washington. DC and
NorthernandNorthwesternVirginia, by theprestigiousZagarSurveyfor everyyear
from 2003to 2007. TheZagatSurveyis the leadingnamein restaurantreviewsin
theUnitedStates,andits prestigiousrankingsareconsideredauthoritative,andoften
eveninfluencethesuccessof restaurants.
* * *
On appeal, the peWioner does not cbim thai 1hebeneficiary meetsany of the regubtory categoriesof evidence not
discussedin this decision.
Page5
[T]he WashingtonianMagazine's"100 Very BestRestaurants"articlesrepresentthe
upper echelonsof the Luxury Food and BeverageIndustry in one of the most
competitiveandimportantmarketsin theworld. . . . [T]he magazinestatesthat the
quality of serviceis a key factor in its rankings. Under }thebenenciary's]expert
leadership,the restaurantMaestro that he managedreceived multiple four-star
ratingsfrom WashingtonianMagazine.
e e e
[Thebeneficiary]servedasRestaurantManager,andhisroleof beingin chargeof
all serviceaspectsof therestaurantis evidencedthroughoutthesupportingmaterials
for the petition, includingall the referencelettersandarticles,and it hasbeenwell
establishedand explainedthat servicealongwith food and décor,are the most
critical aspectsof anyrestaurant'sreview,ranking,or rating. Therefore.it hasbeen
amply establishedthat |the beneficiary]canbecreditedfor the restaurant'sawards,
particularlythe rankingsbasedpurelyon service. Justasthedirectorof a film can
be credited for the successof the film basedon his or her expertdirection, [the
beneficiary] should be credited for the awards received by the restaurantshe
manuged.
(Emphasisin original.)
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)requires1d]ocumentationof the
a/ien's receiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein
the field of endeavor[emphasisadded]." The submissionof documentaryevidencereflecting
awards,rankings,and ratings receivedby restaurantswhere the beneficiary was employed is
insufficient to demonstratethat the beneficiaryreceivednationally or internationallyrecognized
prizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield. Further,theAAO cannotconcludethatan awardthat
was not specifically presentedto the beneficiaryis tantamountto his receiptof a nationally or
internationallyrecognizedaward. It cannotsuffice that thebeneficiarywasonememberof a large
groupthatearnedcollectiverecognition.
Therefore,while Maestro'saccoladesandthebeneficiarv'sroleshaveevidentiaryvaluefor another
criterion,theycannotserveto meetthiscriterion. Instead,theyarefar morerelevantto the"leadinu
or critical role" criterion set forth at the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and will be
discussedseparatelywithin thecontextof thatcriterion.
It is noted,as indicatedin the director's decision.that the petitionersubmittedadditionalawards
suchasthe 1999TheCarltonLondonRestaurantAwardsfor theStarbucksCoffeeCompanyAward
for BestYoungChefandthe 1999AA SpecialAwardsfor England.Thepetitioneralsosubmitted
"Higher Certilicates"for 1999and2000from the Wine & Spirit EducationTrust (WSET). In
counsel'sbrief. he did not contestthe findingsof the directoror offer additionalarguments.The
AAO, therefore,considerstheseissuestobeabandoned.SeeSep/dvedav. U.S.Att'y Gen.,401F.3d
1226.1228n.2 (11thCir. 2(N)5);Hristovv.Roark,No.09-CV-27312011,201I WL 4711885at *1,
Page6
*9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept.30, 201l) (thecourt foundtheplaintiffs claimsto beabandonedashe failedto
raisethem on appealto the AAO). It is noted that the Carlton Award was awardedto Fabio
Trabocchifor bestyoungchef,andtheAA SpecialAward wasawardedto therestaurant,Floriana.
Regardingthe WSET"HigherCertificates while theyindicatethatthe beneliciarywasawarded
the certificates,the petitionerfailed to submit any documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat they
arenationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthatthebeneficiarymeetsthiscriterion.
Publishedinaterial about the alien in professionalor major tradepublicaricȓsor
other inajor media, relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classification is
sought. Suchevidenceshall includethe title, date,and utuhor of thematerial,and
any necessary translation.
Thedirectordeterminedthatthe petitionerfailedto establishthe beneficiarv'seligibility for this
criterion.Onappeal,counselclaims:
We submitthatthe factthat[thebeneficiary]is namedalongside[Chef
andSommelier doesnot in anyway lessenthe impactof [thebeneficiary's)
extraordinaryaccomplishments- in fact,just theopposite.Whena majorfilm wins
an award,the director is likely creditedalongsideactorsandactresses,production
staff, andotherpersonnel;however,this doesnot lessenthe fact thatthedirectoris
deservingof praiseand recognitionfor his or her expert direction of the movie.
Similarly, the fact that [the beneficiary]is praisedalongsidethe Chef and the
Sommelier does not lessenthe nature of his accomplishments. As Restaurant
ManauerandMaîtred'. [the beneliciary)waswholly andultimatelyresponsiblefor
theserviceof the restaurantsunderhis control. As such,whena majorpublication
praisesthe service of a restaurantunder [the beneficiary's] management,he is
deservingof praise,andclearly hasset himself apartfrom othersin the restaurant
industry.
It is wholly remarkablethat [the beneficiary] has been mentionedby name in
publicationsas prestigiousas thosesubmitted,including The WashingtonPost.
While somearticlesmayonly briefly mentionhim, theauthoritativenatureof these
publicationsspeaksvolumes about the outstandingnature of [the beneficiary's]
accomplishments.Thevastmajorityof restaurantstaff(evenincludingthehigher-
profilechef)will neverbementionedevenin a rninorlocalpublication.Restaurants
thatareexceptionalstill rarelyreceiverecognitionin nationalnewspapers.. . . [T]he
vast majority of articlespraiseonly the chef, failing to notethe accomplishments
(howeverimportant)of other key managerswithin the restaurant. Only when the
serviceis truly exceptionalwouldthe RestaurantManagerto benamedin a major
Page7
publication is remarkable,and clearly demonstratesthe outstandingnatureof [the
beneticiary's| achievements.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires1plublished material
ahont the alien in professionalor major tradepublicationsor other major media,relating to the
alien's work in the field for which classificationis sought[emphasisadded]." In general,in order
for publishedmaterialto meetthis criterion,it mustbe primarily aboutthepetitionerand,asstated
in the regulations,be printedin professionalor major tradepublicationsor othermajor media. To
qualify asmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor internationaldistribution.
Somenewspapers,suchas the New York Times,nominally servea particular locality but would
qualify as major mediabecauseof significant nationaldistribution,unlike small local community
papers Furthermore,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires
that 1sjuch evidenceshall include the title. date.and author of the material.and any necessary
translation.
As theplainlanguageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)specificallyrequiresthatthe
publishedmaterialbe "about the alien," counsel'sclaims that articles that praisethe restaurants
wherethebeneficiaryhaveworkedor articleswherethebeneficiaryis mentionedbriefly asoneof
theemployeesof therestaurantis insufficientto meetthis criterion. An articlethatis notaboutthe
beneficiarydoesnot meetthis regulatorycriterion. See,e.g.,Negro-Plumpev Okin, 2:07-CV-820-
ECR-RJJat *l, *7 (D. Nev.Sept.8, 2008)(upholdinga findingthatarticlesabouta showarenot
abouttheactor). In thecasehere,which will be indicatedbelow, thepetitionersubmittedmaterial
that never mentionedthe beneficiaryand material that merely mentionedthe beneficiaryas an
employeebut was not materialaboutthe beneficiaryrelatingto his work. It is insufficientto
establisheligibility for thiscriterionbasedon materialthatsimplylists,mentions,or indicatesthe
beneficiary'sname.suchasthepostingof aplayer'sscoresfromagolf tournamentin a newspaper.
withoutmaterialthat is aboutthe beneficiaryrelatingto his work regardlessif the beneficiary's
namewasmentionedin TheWashingtonPost. The AAO is not persuadedthatanytimeanalien's
nameis mentionedor listedin themediathealienwould automaticallyqualify for theregulationat
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Onappeahcounselfurtherclaims:
|T]he Service has statedthat 1e]vidence of published material should clearly
identify thecirculationandintendedaudienceof thepublication,aswell asthetitle.
date, and author of the material. The Petitioner has failed to provide this
information This is plainly incorrectasa matterof fact,becausethetitle, date.and
author (whereapplicable) of most of publications and/or articles in which |the
beneficiary]or hisworkisreferencedwere,in fact,provided.Accordingto8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)."[sluch evidenceshall include the title, date,and authorof the
Even with nationally-eirculatednewspapers,considerationmust be given to the placementof the article. For
example, an article that appearsin the WashingtonPost, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County,
Virginia. for instance,cannot serveto spreadan individual's reputation outside of that county.
Page8
material,and any necessarytranslation". Nowhere in the regulationsis there a
requirementthatthe Petitioneroffer circulationfiguresfor thepublishedmaterial
provided.
(Emphasisadded.)
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requiresthat the published
materialbe in professionalor major tradepublicationsor other major media." In other words.
simply submittingpublishedmaterialaboutthealien is insufficientto meetthis criterion unlessthe
petitioneralsosubmitsevidencethat the materialwas publishedin professionalor major trade
publicationsor othermajormedia. Althoughthe regulationdoesnot requirethatthe petitioner
submit circulation statistics and the publication's intended audience.that information may
demonstratethat the publicationis a professional,major trade,or othermajor media. As the
petitionerfailed to provide such information,the petitioner failed to establishthat the submitted
materialwaspublishedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia. It is noted
thatcounseldid not submitanydocumentaryevidenceon appealto establishthat thepublications
wereprofessional,major trade,or othermajor mediaeventhoughthe issuewasspecificallyraised
in thedirector'sdecision.
Moreover,theplainlanguageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)providesthat"[sjuch
evidenceshallincludethetitle. date,andauthorof thematerial,andanynecessarytranslation." The
regulationdoesnot statethat the petitionermay include the title, date,andauthorof the material
only whereit is applicable;thereis no exceptionwhenthe petitionermay includeor may not
includetheinformation. In the instanceswherethepetitionerfailedto includethetitle, date,and
author of the material, which will be indicatedbelow, the petitioner failed to meet the plain
languageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
The petitionersubmittedthe following documentationthat doesnot evenmentionthe beneficiary,
let alone reflect publishedmaterialaboutthe beneficiaryrelating to his work in professionalor
majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia:
1. An article entitled."llot NamesRising," Fall 2004,JasperPerkins.Zagat
Magazine
2. An articleentitled."Italy's Flashin the Pan,"unidentifieddate,unidentified
author,lhe TimesMagazine;
3. An article entitled, "Quantity and Some Quality Was the Recipefor the
Year."December29,1996.FayMaschler.EveningStandard:
4. An article entitled."Never Mind the TV, What About the Cooking?"
October6, 1996.FayMaschler,EveningStandard;
Page9
5. An article entitled, "Loved the Chef. Hated the Service October
31 NovernberI, 1998,NicholasI2nder, Financial Times;
6. An article entitled."The Editor's 'A' List," unidentifieddate.unidentified
author,unidentifiedpublication;
7. An articleentitled,"100 Very BestRestaurants" January2006.unidentified
author,Washingtonian;
8. An articleentitled."100 Very BestRestaurants' January2004.unidentilled
author,Washingtonian
9. An articleentitled.··100Very BestRestaurants."January2002.unidentified
author, Washingtonian
10. An article entitled."StephenPile SurvivesActs of God in WalesandSW3.
and Finds Hit-And-Miss in the East End:' February1999.StephenPile,
Harpers& Queen
11. An articleentitled."Why Londonis Still Ruledby Italv," October27. 1998.
FayMaschler.EveningStandard;
12. Anarticleentitled,"TableTalk,"unidentifieddate,A.A. Gill, Style;
13. An article entitled."Floriana." unidentifieddate,unidentifiedauthor,Time
Ont;
14. An article entitled, "One Down, and Another Cross" October 2. 1998,
unidentifiedauthor,ESMagazine;
15. A snippet entitled. "Shirley Bassey Honoured at Opening of Riccardo
Manucchelli's FlorianaRestaurant:'October16,1998.unidentifiedauthor.
OK!:
16. A snippet entitled, Riccardo Mazzucchelli's Restaurant Floriana,
November13,1998,unidentifiedauthor,OK/; and
17. A snippetentitled,"FlorianaDinnerat AccademiaItaliana."unidentified
date.unidentifiedauthor,Hellol.
The articles are about the restaurants,Maestro and Floriana, rather than about the beneficiary
relating to his work. An article that is not about the beneficiarydoesnot meet this regulatory
criterion. See,e.g.,Negro-Plutnpev. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJat *7 (upholdinga finding that
articlesabouta show are not aboutthe actor). Moreover,articlesthat do not evenmentionthe
Page10
beneficiaryclearly arenot publishedmaterialaboutthebeneficiaryrelatingto his work consistent
with theplain languageof this regulatorycriterion. Furthermore,thearticlesindicatedabovethatdo
not includethedateandauthorof thematerialdo not meettheplain languageof theregulationat 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).Finally,whiletheAAO acknowledgesthestatureof ZagarMagazine,the
petitionerfailedto submitanydocumentaryevidenceestablishingthattheotherpublicationsare
professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.
While thepetitionersubmittedthefollowing articlesthatmentionedthebeneficiary'sname.theydo
notreflectpublishedmaterialaboutthebeneficiaryrelatingto hiswork:
18. An articleentitled,"A TastyReviewof HealthyDiningin 2003" January7.
2004,MichaelBirchenall,Weekender,TimesCommunityNewspapers;
19. An articleentitled,"To Crow Over," April 2002,Jim Poris.FoodAr/s:
20. An articlewith a partialtitle, "...Food WriterPicksHis ~Best,'"September
2001,MichaelBirchenall,Weekender,TimesCommunityNewspapers;
21. An articleentitled,"Bravo, Maestro."August2001,RobertShoffner,David
Dorsen,andCynthiaHacinli, Washingtonian:
22. An article entitled, "Ritz's MaestroOffers SeriousAlternative." June 27,
2001,MichaelBirchenall,Weekender,TimesCommunityNewspapers:
23. A screenshotentitled,"2006Fall DiningGuide."October15,2006,Tom
Sietsema,www.washinutonpost.com;
24. An article entitled, "Steaking Your Claim," March 28. 2001, Michael
Birchcnall, Weekender,TimesCommunityNewspapers
25. An article entitled.--PerfectPair at Maestro,"November20, 2002.Michael
Birchenall,GreatFalls Times;
26. An articleentitled,"NewRestaurantOpensin TysonsGalleria" April l 8-24,
200l, JoannaB. lxwis, TheConnection;
27. An article entitled,"Maestro CreatesDishesthat area Feastfor the Eve,"
August23,2001,CorinnaLothar,TheWashingtonTimes;
28. An article entitled, "SeeingStars,"October 19,2003,Tom Sietsema,The
WashingtonPostMagazine:
PageI l
29. A snippetentitled."Guide to America's Best Restaurants,"October2003,
unidentifiedauthor,Gourmet;and
30. An articleentitled."Maestro:Dazzling,ProfessionalPerfect July 23.2003.
MichaelBirchenall,Weekender,TimesCommunityNewspapers.
While the articlesreflect snippetsmentioningthe beneficiary'snameas one of the employeesof
MaestroandFloriana, they do not reflectpublishedmaterialaboutthe beneficiaryrelatingto his
work. Again, thearticlesareprimarily abouttherestaurants,MaestroandFloriana. An articlethat
is notaboutthebeneficiarydoesnotmeetthisregulatorycriterion. See,e.g.,Negro-Plumpev. Okin,
2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJat *7 (upholdinga finding that articlesabouta showare not aboutthe
actor). Although someof the articleswere accom.aniedby photographsof the beneficiarywith
Chef thecaptionsmerelyidentifytheindividuals
in thephotographsandarenotwritten,journalistic coverageof thebeneficiary. Likewise,material
that simply creditsor briefly mentionsthebeneficiaryasthe maîtred' hotelbut is not "published
material''aboutthebeneficiaryrelatingto his work is insufficientto meettheplain languageof the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Again, thedocumentationsubmittedby thepetitionerfails
to reflectanypublishedmaterialaboutthebeneficiaryrelatingto his work. Further,the articles
indicatedabovethat do not includethe dateandauthorof the materialdo not meetthe plain
languageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii).Finally,whiletheAAO acknowledgesthat
vvav.washingtongost,comis majormedia,thepetitionerfailedto submitanydocumentaryevidence
demonstratingthattheotherpublicationsareprofessionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajor
media.
As discussedabove,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires
1plublished materialabout the alien in professionalor major trade publicationsor other major
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classificationis sought" and 1sjuch
evidenceshall includethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,andanynecessarytranslation.''The
burdenis on thepetitionerto establisheveryelementof this criterion. In this case.the petitioner's
documentaryevidencefails to reflectpublishedmaterialaboutthebeneficiaryrelatingto hiswork in
professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthatthebeneficiarymeetsthiscriterion.
&idence of the alien s original scientific,scholarly, artistic, athletic, or husiness-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
In the director's decision.shedeterminedthat the petitioner failed to establishthe beneficiarv's
eligibility for this criterion. The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)
requires1elvidenceof thealiens originalscientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-related
contributionsof major significancein the field." Here,the evidencemustbe reviewedto see
whetherit risesto the level of original business-relatedcontributions"of major signilicancein the
licld." The phrase"major significance"is not superfluousand. thus. it has somemeaning.
Page 12
Silvermanv. Eaurich Midtiple InvestorFund,LP., 51F.3d 28,31(3'dCir. 1995) quotedin APWU
v.l'otter.343F.3d619,626(2* Cir. Sep15,2003).
On appeal,counselclaimsthatthepetitionersubmittednumerousrecommendationletterson the
beneficiary'sbehalfthat demonstratedeligibility for this criterion. However,a review of the
recommendationletters fails to indicatethat the beneficiaryhas madeoriginal contributionsof
major sigmficancein the field. In fact, the lettersnot only providegeneralstatementsbut reflect
bareassertionswithout offering any specific informationto establishhow beneficiarys work has
beenof majorsignificance.For instance, stated:
[The beneficiary}hasexertedandcontinuesto exerta tremendousinfluenceon the
field,givenhisleadershipin excellencein service.[Thebeneficiary]hascontributed
a levelof serviceto theindustrythatwaspreviouslyunheardof andwhichcontinues
to setthe level for superlativequality. This excellencehasimprovedtheservicein
the industry as a whole as the industry tries to match his level to the benefit of
customersworldwide. [Thebeneficiary]hasbeengiventhewell-deservednickname
in the llospitality Industry as "the guru of service I am certain that his
commitmentto suchhighstandardswill continueto serviceexcellenceandwill lead
to thedevelopmentof futurestarswithin theindustry.
Mr. did not explainhowthebeneficiaryhasexertedtremendousinfluenceon thefield or
howthebeneficiary'sservicehassomehowinfluencedthefield, soasto demonstrateanoriginal
contributionof majorsignificancein thefield. Simplymakinggeneralstatementsandfailing to
provide specific informationestablishingthat the beneficiarv'scontributionshavebeenof major
significancein the field is insufficient to meetthe plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). Further.Mr. speculatesthat the beneficiary'sserviceandcommitment
will developfuturestarsin the industryat someunspecifiedtime in the future. Eligibility mustbe
establishedatthetimeof filing. 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);MatterofKatighak,14l&N Dec.45.
49 (Reg'l Comm r 1971).A petition cannot be approvedat a future date aller the petitioner
becomeseligibleundera newsetof facts. Matter of Izummi,22 l&N Dec. 169,175(Comm'r
1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter ofBardouille, 18 I&N Dec. I 14(BIA 1981),
thatUSCIScannot"considerfactsthatcomeinto beingonly subsequentto the filing of a petition.
M at 176. A petitionercannotfile a petitionunderthisclassificationbasedon theexpectationof the
beneficiarv'sfutureeligibility. The assertionthat thebeneficiarywill makecontributionsthatwill
influencethe field is not adequateto establishthat he hasalreadymadeoriginal contributionsof
majorsignificancein thefield.
Moreover.ratherthandiscussingthebeneficiary'simpactor inliuenceonthefieldasa whole.they
discussexclusivelythebeneficiarv'spersonalaccomplishmentsandachievementsfor thepetitioner
and its former restaurant,Maestro. For example, statedthat the beneficiarv's
"expertisehasalsobeeninvaluablein his assignments[for the petitionerj" and"has demonstrated
thathe is an unmatchedassetto [thepetitioner],andhashelpedto ensurethe attainmentof the
highestaccoladesfor a numberof our hotels Further, statedthat the
beneficiary's"impact was only felt within one restaurant,but in his presentrole, he is able to
Page13
influence the manner in which service is provided throughoutthe entire Food and Beverace
operation [for the petitioner]." In addition, the petitioner submitted letters from
for the InternationalMonetary Fund/World Bank Group. and
Washington Redskins,who
commendedthe beneficiaryfor his banquetservicesthat were usedthroughthe petitioner. The
lettersfail to indicate,for example,thatthebeneficiary'scontributionshavebeenwidelyappliedor
implementedin the field asa whole ratherthanlimited to thepetitioner,andits former restaurant,
Maestro.
Furthermore,the recommendationletters discussfar more persuasivelythe beneSciary'sskills.
experience,performance,andtalentsratherthanhis original contributionsthat havebeenof major
significancein the field. For instance, referred to the beneficiarv's outstanding
commitment,selflessteamwork,andsuperlativeabilities"; referredto thebeneficiary's
"superlativeknowledge,anexceptionaltrackrecordof accomplishments,anda sincerededication
to thedevelopmentin hospitality": referredto thebeneficiary's"superlativeservice
andimportantleadership"and"passionandtalent"; referredto thebeneficiary's"acute
evefor detailandsuperiorknowledgeof foodandbeverage";and referredto the
beneficiary's"attentionto detail creativity,andpassionfor thehighestlevelof personalservice.
However,noneof thelettersindicatedhowthebeneficiary'sskills,experience,or personaltraitsare
original contributionsof major significanceto the field. Merely havinga diverseskill setis not a
contributionof majorsignificancein andof itself. Rather,therecordmustbesupportedby evidence
thatthebeneficiaryhasalreadyusedthoseuniqueskills to impactthe field at a significantlevel in
anoriginal way. Furthermore,assumingthepetitioner'sskills areunique.theclassificationsought
wasnotdesignedmerelytoalleviateskill shortagesin agivenfield. In fact,thatissueproperlyfalls
underthejurisdiction of the Departmentof Laborthroughthealienemploymentlaborcertification
process.SeeMatterofNew YorkStateDep't. of7'raavp.,22 I&N Dec.215.221(Comm'r 1998).
While thosefamiliarwith thebeneficiary'swork generallydescribeit as"extraordinary thereis
insufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary's work is of major
significance. This regulatory criterion not only requires the beneficiary to make original
contributions,theregulatorycriterion alsorequiresthosecontributionsto be of majorsignificance.
TheAAO is not persuadedby vague,solicitedlettersthatsimply repeattheregulatorylanguagebut
do not explainhow the beneficiary'scontributionshavealreadyinfluencedthe field. Vague,
solicitedlettersfrom local colleaguesthat do not specificallyidentify contributionsor provide
specific examplesof how thosecontributionsinfluencedthe field are insufficient. Kazarian v.
USCIS,580F.3d1030,1036(9thCir. 2009)aff'd in part 596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010). In 2010,
theKazariancourtreiteratedthatthe AAO's conclusionthatthe "lettersfrom physicsprofessors
attestingto [the petitioner's|contributionsin the field" were insufficient was"consistentwith the
relevantregulatorylanguage 596 F.3dat l 122. Moreover,thelettersconsideredaboveprimarily
containbareassertionsof thebeneficiary'sstatusin thefield withoutprovidingspecificexamplesof
how thosecontributionsrise to a level consistentwith major significancein the field. Merely
repeatingthelanguageof thestatuteor regulationsdoesnot satisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof.
FedinBros.Co..Ltd. v.Sava,724F. Supp.I 103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),aff'd,905F. 2d41 (2d.
Page 14
Cir. 1990):Avvr Associates./nc. v. Meissner, 1997WL 188942at *5 (S.D.N.Y.).The lack of
supportingevidencegivestheAAO nobasisto gaugethesignificanceof thebeneficiary'spresent
contributions,
Further, USclS may, in its discretion,use as advisory opinion statementssubmittedas expert
testimony. SeeMatter of Caron /nternational,19 I&N Dec.791,795(Comm'r 1988). However,
USCISis ultimately responsiblefor makingthe final determinationregardingan alien's eligibility
for the benefitsought. /d. The submissionof lettersof supportfrom the petitioner'spersonal
contactsis not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmayevaluatethecontentof thoseletters
asto whetherthev supportthe alien's eligibility. Seeid. at 795;seealso Matter of V-K-, 24 [&N
Dec.500.n.2(BIA 2008). Thus.thecontentof thewriters' statementsandhow theybecameaware
of the beneficiary'sreputationare importantconsiderations.Even when written by independent
experts,letterssolicitedby an alien in supportof an immigrationpetition areof lessweight than
preexisting,independentevidenceof originalcontributionsof majorsignificance.
Again. the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)requires"|elvidenceof the
alien's original scientific. scholarly,artistic, athletic, or business-relatedcontributionsof rnajor
significancein thefield [emphasisadded]." Without additional,specificevidenceshowingthatthe
beneficiary's work has been unusually influential, widely applied throughouthis tield, or has
otherwiserisento thelevelof contributionsof majorsignificance,theAAO cannotconcludethathe
meetsthiscriterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailed to establishthatthebeneficiarymeetsthiscriterion.
Evidencethat thealien hasperformedin a leadingor critical rolefor organieations
or establishmemsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
In the director's requestfor additional evidencepursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii),thedirectorinitially determinedthatthepetitionerestablishedthebeneficiary's
eligibility for this criterion. However.in thedirector'sdenialof thepetition,thedirectorstatedthat
"further review indicatesthattherecorddoesnot includesufficientevidencedemonstratingthatthe
beneficiary has performedin a leadingor critical role." On appeal.counselclaims "that the
Director'sdecisionto reverseacceptanceof this criterionis patentlyunfair.[and| it runscontrarvto
federalregulations,"and "the Petitionerwas not grantedits legally affordedopportunityto rebut
whattheDirectornow considersdelicient
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(8)providesin pertinentpart:
(ii) Initial evidence.If all requiredinitial evidenceis not submittedwith the
applicationor petitionor doesnot demonstrateeligibility, USCISin its discretion
maydenytheapplicationor petitionfor lackof initialevidenceor for ineligibilityor
requestthatthemissinginitial evidencebe submittedwithin a specifiedperiodof
timeasdeterminedby USCIS.
Page15
(iii) Other evidence. If all requiredinitial evidencehas beensubmittedbut the
evidencesubmitteddoesnotestablisheligibility, USCISmay:denytheapplication
or petition for ineligibility; requestmoreinformationor evidencefrom theapplicant
or petitioner,to be submittedwithin a specifiedperiod of time as determinedby
USCIS;or notify the applicantor petitionerof its intentto denythe applicationor
petition and the basis for the proposeddenial, and require that the applicantor
petitioner submit a responsewithin a specifiedperiod of time as determinedby
USCIS.
Moreover,theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(16)providesin pertinentpart:
(i) Derogatoryinformationunknownto petitioneror applicant. If the decisionwill
be adverseto the applicantor petitionerand is basedon derogatoryinformation
consideredby theServiceandof whichtheapplicantor petitionerisunaware,he/she
shallbeadvisedof thisfactandofferedanopportunityto rebuttheinformationand
presentinformationin his/herown behalfbeforethedecisionis rendered. . .
The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8)doesnot requirethe directorto requestadditional
documentationor issuea noticeof intent to deny every time that the petitionerfails to establish
eligibility for an immigrationbenefit. Instead,the directorhasthe discretionto deny,request
additional informationor evidence,or notify the petitionerof its intention to deny. Even if the
director reevaluatesher preliminary determination,the regulationsdo not requirethe director to
afford the petitioner an opportunity to submit additional documentationor rebut the new
determinationof the directorprior to the final decision. Furthermore,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(16)(i)doesnot require the director to notify the petitioner prior to issuing the final
decisioneverytimethedecisionwill beadverse.Instead,theregulationrequiresthatthedirectorto
notify thepetitionerwhen:(1) thedecisionwill beadverse,(2) thedecisionisbasedon derogatory
information consideredby the Service,and (3) the applicant or petitioner is unawareof the
derogatoryinformation. In this case,thedirector'sdecisionregardingthis criterion wasnot based
on derogatoryinformation that the petitionerwas unaware. Rather,the director reevaluatedthe
documentary evidence that was initially submitted by the petitioner and determined that the
evidencedid notestablishthebeneficiary'seligibility for this criterion. Moreover,thedecisionwas
notbasedonderogatoryinformationthatcameto light afterthedirector'sissuanceof therequestfor
additionalevidence.Justas the director'sinitial unfavorablefinding indicatedin a requestfor
additionalevidenceis not the final decision,the director's initial favorablefinding in a requestfor
additionalevidenceis alsonot the linal decision. For thesereasons.aswell ascounsel'sfailure to
cite to any law, regulation,precedentdecision,or USCIS policy that would prohibit the director
fromreevaluatingherinitial findingin a requestfor additionalevidence,theAAO is notpersuaded
that the director is required to notify the petitioner prior to issuing a final decision when a
reevaluationof thedocumentaryfailsto supporta favorablefinding. As such,theAAO findsthat
thedirectordidnotcommitaproceduralerrorregardingthisissue.
While thereis somemeritto counsel'scontentionregardingthe inability to rebutthe director's
finding prior to thedenial,evenif thedirectorhadcommitteda proceduralerror,it is notclearwhat
Page 16
remedywould be appropriatebeyondthe appealprocessitself. On appeal,the petitionerhasthe
opportunityto supplementthe recordand makefurther argumentsregardingthe beneticiary's
eligibility. Therefore,it would serveno usefulpurposeto remandthecasesimplyto affordthe
petitionerthe opportunityto supplementthe record with new evidenceor new arguments.
Regardless,the AAO will review the recordin its entiretybasedon the petitioner'sappellate
argumentsregardingthe beneficiary'seligibility. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. United States,
229F.Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),affd, 345F.3d683(9thCir.2003);seealSOSOl/anev.
IV)f, 381 F.3d 143,145(3d Cir. 2004)(notingthattheAAO conductsappellatereviewon a de
novo basis).
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires"le]vidence that the
alien hasperformedin a leading or critical role for orgamzationsor establishmentsthat havea
distinguishedreputationlemphasisadded)." In general,a leadingrole is evidencedfrom the role
itself,andacriticalroleis onein whichthealienwasresponsiblefor thesuccessor standingof the
orgamzationor establishment. Moreover, the businessor nature of the orgamzationis not
determinative:rathertheissuehereistheorganization'soverallreputation.
On appeal,counselclaims that the petitioner demonstratedthe beneficiary's eligibility for this
criterion basedsolely on the beneficiary'srole with the petitioner. Basedupon a review of the
recordof proceeding,thepetitionersubmittedsufficientdocumentaryevidenceto establishthatthe
beneficiary'srole with the petitionerminimally meetsthe plain languageof the regulationat 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii).However,section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct requiresthesubmissionof
extensiveevidence.Consistentwith thatstatutoryrequirement,theplain languageof theregulation
at 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(viii)requiresa leadingor critical role in morethanoneorganizationor
establishment.Significantly,not all of the criteriaat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)arewordedin the
plural. Specifically,theregulationsat 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(ix) only requireserviceon a
singlejudging panelor a single high salary. When a regulatorycriterion wishesto include the
singularwithin theplural, it expresslydoessoaswhenit statesat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)that
evidenceof experiencemustbein the form of "letter(s)." Thus,USCIScaninfer thattheplural in
the remainingregulatorycriteria hasmeaning. In a different context,federalcourts haveupheld
USCIS' ability to interpretsignificancefrom whetherthe singularor plural is usedin a regulation.
See Maram/aya v. USCIS,Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at ]2 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008);
Snapnames.comInc. v. Chertoff;2006WL 3491005at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006)(upholdingan
interpretationthat the regulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreign equivalent
degreeat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(1)(2)requiresa singledegreeratherthana combinationof academic
credentials).
The AAO notesthat at the initial filing of the petition,counselalsoclaimedthe beneficiary's
eligibility for thiscriterionbasedon hisroleatFloriana. However,on appeal,counselclaimsthe
beneficiary'seligibility for this criterionbasedonly on thebeneficiary'srole with thepetitionerand
makesno claim that the beneficiary'srole at Floriana meetsthis criterion. The AAO, therefore,
considersthis claimto beabandoned.SeeSepulvedav. U.S.Att'y Gen.,4(31JUd at 1228n. 2:
Hristovv. Roark,No. 09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at *9 (thecourtfoundthe plaintiff's
claimstobeabandonedashefailedtoraisethemonappealtotheAAO).
Page17
Again. the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)requires1elvidence that
thealien hasperformedin a leadingor critical role for organizationsor establishmentsthat havea
distinguishedreputation[emphasisadded] The burdenis on the petitionerto establishthat the
beneficiarymeetsevery elementof this criterion. Without documentaryevidencedemonstrating
that the petitionerhasperformedin a'leading or critical role for more than one organizationor
establishmentthathasa distinguishedreputation,the AAO cannotconcludethatthe beneficiary
meetsthiscriterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedto establishthatthebeneficiarymeetsthiscriterion.
B. Summary
Thepetitionerhasfailedto satisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.
Ill. O-1NONIMMIGRANT
TheAAO notesthatat thetime of the filing of thepetition,thebeneficiarywaslastadmittedto the
United Statesas an 0-1 nonimmigranton September14, 2010. However, while USCIS has
approvedat leastoneO-1 nonimmigrantvisapetitionfiled on behalfof thebeneficiary,theprior
approvaldoesnot precludeUSCISfrom denyingan immigrantvisapetitionbasedon a different,if
similarly phrased,standard.It mustbe notedthat many1-140immigrantpetitionsaredeniedafter
USCISapprovesprior nonimmigrantpetitions. See,e.g.,Q Data Considring,Inc. v. INS, 293 F.
Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C.2003);IKEA USv. USDept.of Justice,48 F. Supp.2d 22 (D,D.C. 1999);
FedinBrothersCo.Ltd. v.Sava,724F.Supp.at 1103.BecauseUSCISspendslesstimereviewing
1-129nonimmigrantpetitions than I-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrantpetitions are
simply approvedin error. O Data Consulting,Inc. v.INS, 293F. Supp.2d at 29-30;seealso Texas
A&M Univ.v. Upchurch,99 Fed.Appx.556,2004WL 1240482(5thCir. 2004)(findingthatprior
approvalsdo not precludeUSCISfrom denyingan extensionof the original visa basedon a
reassessmentof petitioner'squalifications).
The AAO is not required to approveapplicationsor petitions where eligibility has not been
demonstrated,merelybecauseof priorapprovalsthatmayhavebeenerroneous.See,e.g.,Matterof
ChurchScientologyInternational, 19l&N Dec. 593. 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurdto
suggestthat USCISor any agencymust treatacknowledgederrorsas binding precedent.Sussex
Engg.Ltd. v.Montgomery,825F.2d1084,1090(6thCir. 1987),cert.denied,485 U.S. 1008(1988).
Furthermore.the AAO's authority over the service centersis comparableto the relationship
betweena court of appealsand a district court. Evenif a servicecenterdirectorhasapproveda
nonimmigrantpetition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be bound to follow the
contradictorydecisionof a servicecenter.LouisianaPhilharmonicOrchestrav. INS,2000WL
282785(E.D.La.),affd, 248F.3di139(5thCir. 200I),cert.denied,122S.Ct.5I (200l).
Page18
An applicationor petition that fails to comply with the technicalrequirementsof the law may be
deniedby theAAO evenif theServiceCenterdoesnot identify all of thegroundsfor denialin the
initial decision.SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d at 1043,aff'd,345
F.3dat 683; seealso Soltanen IX)1, 381 F.3d at 145(noting that the AAO conductsappellate
reviewon adenovobasis).
IV. CONCLUSION
The documentationsubmittedin supportof a claim of extraordinaryability must clearly
demonstratethatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandisoneof the
smallpercentagewho hasrisento thevery topof thefield of endeavor.
Even if the petitionerhad submittedthe requisiteevidenceunder at least threeevidentiary
categories,in accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits
determinationthatconsidersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhas
demonstrated:(1) a "level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividual is oneof thatsmallpercentage
who haverisen to the very top of the[ir] tield of endeavor"and (2) "that the alien hassustained
nationalor internationalacclaimandthathisor herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield
of expertise." 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(2)and(3); seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.While the
AAO concludesthat theevidenceis not indicativeof a level of expertiseconsistentwith thesmall
percentageat thevery top of thefield or sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO need
notexplainthatconclusionin a final meritsdetermination.4Rather,theproperconclusionis thatthe
petitionerhasfailed to satisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
at 1I
The petitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the Act and the
petitionmaynotbeapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of
the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Here,the petitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden. Accordingly,the
appeal will be dismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.
The AAO maintainsde novoreviewof all questionsof factandlaw. SeeSoltanev. D01, 381 F.3dat 145. In any
luture proceeding,the AAO maintainsthejurisdiction to conduct a final merits determinationas theoffice that madethe
lastdecisionin this matter.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealsosection103(a)(1)of theAct; section204(b)of theAct;
DHS DelegationNumber0150.1(effective March 1,2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1(2003);8 C.F.R.§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003);
Mauerof Aurelio. 191&NDec.458,460(BIA 1987)(holdingthatlegaevINS, nowUSCIS,is thesoleauthority
with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).