dismissed EB-1A Case: Forestry

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofjice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
identieing data deleted to 
prevent c !ear l y unv~mited 
invasion of personal privacy 
- 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
wc5- 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 0 4 2009 
SRC 06 039 52819 
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. § 1153(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. 
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. 9 103.5 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. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
,A[ O!&l!fl& 
John F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center. The petitioner filed an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), which 
remanded the matter to the director for further action and consideration. The director denied the 
petition again. The matter is now before the 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 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the sciences. 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. 5 204.5(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). 
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. 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 sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on November 18, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a forester. 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, 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. 8 204.5(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. 4 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in thefield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted his certificates of attendance, participation, and completion for various 
training courses, seminars, and workshops in which he was enrolled, but these certificates are not 
"prizes or awards." The petitioner has not established that these certificates were presented for 
excellence in the field rather than his fulfillment of career training requirements. Successful 
completion of a training course is not tantamount to the petitioner's receipt of a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a "1999 Environmentalist Awardee of the Year" commendation certificate 
issued to him by his immediate employer at that time, the National Power Corporation, Quezon City, 
Philippines. The director found that this award reflects institutional recognition rather than national 
or international recognition. We concur with the director's finding. 
The petitioner submitted a "Service Award" (1998) from the National Power Corporation for his 
"Ten Years of dedicated service to the CORPORATION." This award reflects institutional 
recognition for length of service rather than national or international recognition for excellence in the 
field. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the National Power Corporation "is a government-owned and 
controlled corporation and ranked as the top corporation in the country." The record does not 
include evidence to support the petitioner's assertion. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Nevertheless, the plain language of the 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be 
nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every 
element of this criterion. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the "1999 Environmentalist 
Awardee of the Year" commendation or the ten-year length of service award had a significant level 
of recognition beyond the petitioner's employer. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien S membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted his Certificate of Membership for the Society of Filipino Foresters. The 
record, however, does not include evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission 
requirements) showing that the Society requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged 
by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits copies of his Board Ratings and Board Certificate from the 
Professional Regulation Commission of the Philippines Board of Foresters. The petitioner states that 
these documents show that he is "a Licensed and Registered Forester by the Professional Regulation 
Commission,'' but he acknowledges that the preceding evidence may not comply with the 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. There is no evidence demonstrating that being licensed or 
registered by the preceding commission is tantamount to membership in an association in the field 
requiring outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established 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 alliedjield of specification for which classiJication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 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. § 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. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner submitted an October 1, 2005 letter from 
 Vice President, National 
Power Corporation, Northern Luzon Regional Center, stating: 
[The petitioner] was . . . chosen to become one of the panel of judges in the '1998 Regional 
Search For The Best Power Plant and Transmission Line Facility in the Northern Luzon 
Region.' The scope of the contest includes cleanliness, good housekeeping, safety, 
environmental and watershed management performance, community relations and other related 
aspect of plant operations and maintenance. 
The director found that that the petitioner's participation as a judge in a "regional" competition 
organized by his immediate employer in 1998 was not indicative of sustained national or 
international acclaim. We concur with the director's finding. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that the director did not adequately explain "the exact details" 
relating to the deficiencies in the evidence submitted for this criterion. The plain language of this 
regulatory criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the work of 
others." There is no evidence showing the names of the facilities or individuals evaluated by the 
petitioner and documentation of his assessments. Further, the letter from 
 does not 
specify which contest categories (i.e., good housekeeping) the petitioner evaluated and their 
relevance to forestry. We cannot conclude that serving on a panel for a regional competition at the 
request of one's immediate employer is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at 
the very top of the field. 
In light of the above, 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 evidence showing that he prepared an "Environmental Exchange Program 
Participant Report" summarizing hs training program at the University of California, Berkeley in 2000. 
We cannot conclude that the petitioner's participant report fiom this training program qualifies as a 
scholarly article authored by him. Rather, the report is mostly a compilation of scholarly articles written 
by others. On appeal, the petitioner acknowledges that his report "was not published in a professional 
or major trade publication" or some other form of major media. Accordingly, 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he performed in a leading and critical role for the National Power 
Corporation. At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the 
reputation of the entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that 
the alien's selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or 
international acclaim. 
The October 1, 2005 letter fi-om 
 states that the petitioner worked for the National 
Power Corporation as a "Technical Assistant" in the Northern Luzon Regional Center. There is no 
evidence showing that the National Power Corporation had a distinguished reputation during the 
petitioner's employment or that his position with the company was leading or critical. The 
petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how his role differentiated him ftom the other techcal 
assistants and specialists in his region or throughout the country, let alone the company's more senior 
management. The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible 
for his employer's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical 
role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
The petitioner submitted a certification fi-om the Administration Manager, Generation Company 2, 
National Power Corporation, specifying his total income in 2002. In addressing the petitioner's 
evidence, the director's decision stated: "The petitioner did not offer a basis for comparison showing 
that hs compensation was significantly higher in relation to others in his field. There is no evidence 
that the petitioner earns a level of pay that places him among the highest paid forestry specialist[s] at the 
national or international level." We concur with the director's findings. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that foresters employed by the National Power Corporation earned a 
higher salary than those employed by the Philippine "Department of Environment & Natural 
Resources." The record does not include evidence to support the petitioner's assertion. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. at 158, 165 (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N at 190). There is no objective and reliable national salary data 
demonstrating that the petitioner has commanded significantly high earnings in relation to others in 
his field. 
In light of the above, 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 his 
receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence 
to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(2). 
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. 8 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.