dismissed EB-1A Case: Geology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
~L1CCOP'\: 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Irrnnigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: 
SEP 27 2010 
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. § I I 53(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any furtber inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 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. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I03.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
, 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on February 10,2009, 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. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as a geologist. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such 
an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
I. Request for Evidence 
In addition, counsel argues that "the Service did not afford [the petitioner 1 an opportunity to 
address any of the cited deficiencies whish is the usual custom taken by the Service III 
extraordinary ability." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b)(8) provides in pertinent part: 
(ii) Initial evidence. If all required initial evidence is not submitted with the 
application or petition or does not demonstrate eligibility, USCIS in its discretion 
may deny the application or petition for lack of initial evidence or for ineligibility or 
request that the missing initial evidence be submitted within a specified period of 
time as determined by USCIS. 
(iii) Other evidence. If all required initial evidence has been submitted but the 
evidence submitted does not establish eligibility, USCIS may: deny the application 
or petition for ineligibility; request more information or evidence from the applicant 
or petitioner, to be submitted within a specified period of time as determined by 
USCIS; or notifY the applicant or petitioner of its intent to deny the application or 
petition and the basis for the proposed denial, and require that the applicant or 
petitioner submit a response within a specified period of time as determined by 
uscrs. 
Page 3 
A review of the record reflects that the director adjudicated the petition based on the evidence 
submitted at the time the petition was filed. The director did not deny the petition because initial 
evidence was missing; rather the submitted evidence failed to establish eligibility for the benefit. 
We find that in denying the petition, the director complied with 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(8)(ii) and (iii). 
Furthermore, 8 C.F .R. § § 103 .2(b )(8)(ii) and (iii) provides for discretionary authority to request 
additional evidence, provide notice of the director's intent to deny the application or petition, or 
deny the petition or application. In this case, the director exercised his discretionary authority and 
denied the petition based on the evidence submitted by the petitioner not establishing eligibility for 
the benefit. For these reasons, we are not persuaded by counsel's argument that the director erred in 
his decision regarding this matter. 
II. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if --
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, 
arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(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 H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29,1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. Id. and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
-Page 4 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the 
following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major 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; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles In the field, In 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 20 I 0, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.] With respect to the criteria 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel, substantive, or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfY the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the [ir] field of endeavor," 
8 c'F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c, § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
ld.atlI19. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), atJ'd, 345 FJd 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 FJd 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on October 10, 2008, seeks to classify the pe!1tlOner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a geologist. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria under 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3). 2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 6 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion 
based on the following submitted documentation: 
l. 
2. Regular Certification in 
from an unidentified 
source on November 22, 2002; 
3. A certificate reflecting the petitioner's completion of the 
4. A certificate reflecting the petitioner's completion of the 
5. 
6. A certificate reflecting the petitioner's completion of the •••• 
8. 
9. 
10. 
Il. Habits of 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. A RAP certificate for the 
and Completing the SideTrack 
from .. Ii .................. iiiiiii 
16. 
Page 7 
In the director's decision, he concluded that "[t]he level of recognition and prestige associated 
with the awards received by the petitioner are insufficient to meet the criteria of lesser nationally 
or internationally-recognized prizes or awards." On appeal, counsel argues: 
Selection for these Company Awards is very competitive, and is based on 
performance and results that are "above and beyond the norm," in recognition of 
"outstanding efforts" and "superb efforts and achievements." A committee of 
cross functional managers conducts the selection process. Each award carried a 
monetary prize as well as Company recognition. The awards were presented at a 
meeting of earth scientists within ••••••••••••• 
The is comprised of approximately one hundred 
(100) earth scientists. The awards were presented by the RM Manager on behalf 
of the General Manager. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of 
the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor [emphasis added]." Moreover, it is the petitioner's burden 
to establish eligibility for every element of this criterion. Not only must the petitioner 
demonstrate his receipt of prizes and awards, he must also demonstrate that those prizes and 
awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. In 
other words, the petitioner must establish his prizes and awards are recognized nationally or 
internationally beyond the awarding entities. 
Regarding items 1 - 11, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires 
the prizes or awards to be "in the field of endeavor." However, academic study is not a field of 
endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, attending and completing 
intercompany training courses and seminars cannot be considered nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Significantly, this office has 
held, in a precedent decision involving a lesser classification than the one sought in this matter, that 
academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade point average, is not a specific prior 
achievement that establishes the alien's ability to benefit the national interest. Matter of New 
York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215,219, n.6 (Comm'r. 1998). Thus, academic 
performance is certainly not comparable to the awards criterion set forth at the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Furthermore, this regulatory criterion requires the awards or prizes to be for "excellence." 
Although we find that the petitioner's documentation does not equate to prizes or awards, we are 
also not persuaded that simply attending a seminar or successfully completing a course is 
tantamount to a prize or award, let alone a prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Finally, regarding items 12 - 16, the regulation requires the petitioner's prizes or awards to be 
"nationally or internationally recognized." According to the screenshots from 
submitted by the petitioner, "[t]he R&A Program provides managers and 
and real-time ways to recognize employee contributions to the 
Page 8 
cOlffip1any's success." Based on the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner, awards 
from Program are corporate recognition rather than national or international 
recognition within the field of geology. The petitioner failed to establish that awards from 
_ R&A Program equate to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 
As discussed, the plain language of this regulatory criterion specifically requires the petitioner to 
submit evidence of his nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes for excellence in 
the field of endeavor, and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case, 
there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that the petitioner received any nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish 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. 
director determined that the petitioner's 
memberships with these organizations failed to meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). On appeal, counsel argues: 
[The petitioner] asserts that a broader reading of this regulatory provISIon is 
necessary to satisfy statutory intent. The Service's narrow application - requiring 
that a petitioner identify and document specific, quantifiable achievement(s) that 
were requirements for membership - serves to exclude some fields of endeavor 
from meeting this criterion entirely, specifically those fields related to business. 
[The petitioner] has submitted expert testimony that membership in the _]­
the world's largest professional geological society - requires: sponsorship by 
three _ members; possession of an advanced degree in geological science; 
three years practicing or teaching geology; and vetting by the Membership 
Committee as to credentials. Membership in _ thus qualifies for an 
organization that requires outstanding achievement and should be considered as 
meeting the membership criterion. 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted the following 
documentation: 
I. A membership card for reflecting that the petitioner has been an 
Associate Member since 2007. 
-Page 9 
2. A membership card for _ reflecting that the petitioner has been an 
Associate Member since September 12, 1984. 
3. Screenshots from the website reflecting the following 
membership requirements for AAPG: 
4. 
5. 
Active Members - Any person engaged in the practice or teaching of 
geology may apply for Active membership, provided the applicant holds a 
Bachelor's, Master's or Doctor's Degree in geological science from a 
college of acceptable standards and, in addition, has had three (3) years of 
experience in the practice or teaching of geology. Credit for experience 
can be counted as follows: Master's Degree - one year; Doctor's Degree 
- two years. The Executive Committee may waive degree or current 
professional activity requirements if in its judgment an applicant has 
adequate professional experience and has attained standing in the 
profession. 
Associate Members - Any person not qualified for any other class of 
membership who is a graduate of a college of acceptable academic 
standards whose employment is associated with geology, may apply for 
election as an Associate. The Executive Committee may waive degree 
requirements, if in its judgment an applicant has adequate professional 
experience, and has attained professional standing. 
A membership card for •. 
Screenshots from the website _ 
membership requirements for~ 
reflecting the following 
Professional Member - Employment in work related to the petroleum 
industry and one of the following: 
a. A university degree equivalent to a four-year 
Bachelor's degree in engineering or basic sciences; 
b. A two-year science or engineering degree or a 4-
year degree in a field other than science 
engineering; or 
c. Six years of active practice in support of petroleum 
engineering or the application of the petroleum 
industry. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "[dJocumentation of 
the alien's membership in associations in the field for which is classification is sought, which 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields." It is the petitioner's burden to establish every 
element of this criterion. Not only must the petitioner demonstrate membership with 
associations in the field, he must also establish that those associations require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. In 
Page \0 
other words, a petitioner must show that the associations require outstanding achievements 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. 
For these reasons, we are not persuaded by counsel's argument that the director applied a 
"narrow application" to this criterion. Merely submitting documentary evidence reflecting the 
petitioner's membership is insufficient to establish eligibility for the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Counsel further argues that the requirements for membership exclude some 
fields of endeavor. The ten categories in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; 
not every criterion will apply to every occupation. Regardless, we are not persuaded that an 
alien in the field of geology could not meet the regulatory requirements of this criterion. The 
fact that an alien is simply unable to meet or submit documentary evidence for this criterion is 
insufficient to demonstrate that the criterion is not applicable to the field as a whole. 
Regarding we first note that even though both membership cards reflect the same 
membership number, one card reflects the petitioner's membership since 1984, and the other 
card reflects the petitioner's membership since 1997. We further note that both cards indicate 
that the petitioner is an Associate Member. While counsel argues on appeal that the membership 
requirements for _ require outstanding achievements, counsel described the membership 
requirements for Active Membership. The record clearly reflects that the petitioner is an 
Associate Member. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that holding a college degree in 
geological science and having three years of experience is tantamount to outstanding 
achievements for Active membership, let alone having a college degree and whose employment 
is associated with geology for Associate Membership. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to 
establish that membership with is judged by national or international experts in the field. 
Regarding ., counsel did not address the petitioner's membership with _ on appeal. 
Similar to our reasoning for we are not persuaded that employment in the petroleum 
industry and having a college degree or practical experience demonstrates outstanding 
achievements of its members. Moreover, the petitioner failed to establish that membership with 
_ is judged by national or international experts in the field. 
While and. narrow their membership by requiring education and experience, they fall 
far short from reflecting outstanding achievements of their members. In addition, the 
documentary evidence is insufficient to reflect that outstanding achievements of their members 
are judged by national or international experts in the field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Page 11 
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 field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The director determined that although the petitioner submitted documentary evidence reflecting 
his participation as a judge of the work of others, the director determined that the petitioner 
failed to establish his sustained national or international acclaim. However, the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence 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 field of 
specification for which classification is sought." Pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22, the 
petitioner submitted sufficient documentation establishing that he meets the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Therefore, we withdraw the findings of the director for this 
criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, or business-related 
contributions of a major significance in the field 
The director concluded that the documentary evidence submitted 
reflect original contributions of major significance outside of the 
appeal, counsel argues: 
Some of [the petitioner's] significant 
application of new computer software 
petitioner] initiated the first ever use 
relate to groundbreaking 
1993, [the 
increased oil production of barrels of oil per day. 
technology, not exclusive [t was developed by and is not 
owned by now regarded as "[tJhe E&P industry's most 
advanced modeling system"; however, at the time of [the 
petitioner's] successful application, the technology was relatively unknown. In 
2001, over ten years after [the petitioner] first utilized , only 
approximately 100 scientists had utilized this software program. 
In 1997, [the petitioner] initiated the first ever successful application of_ 
technology. [The petitioner's] use of_ resulted in a 30% increase in oil 
production and field reserves of million 
technology was developed 
and is a proprietary technology. on demonstrated expertise, [the 
petitioner] thereafter served as the_ in-house expert and mentor from 1997 
until 2005. 
In addition, counsel refers to awards received by the petltlOner as "evidence of multiple 
additional contributions for which informal acclaim was received, and has made significant 
Page 12 
contributions to innovative capabilities." We have already considered the petitioner's 
awards under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and will not presume that evidence 
relating to or even meeting the awards criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also 
meets this criterion. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the regulatory requirement that a 
petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the 
alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." In compliance with Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain 
language of the regulatory criteria. 596 F.3d at 1121. Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see 
whether it rises to the level of "original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field." The petitioner submitted brief overviews of • 
••••••• and recommendation letters from individuals who have worked with or 
otherwise interacted with the petitioner. We cite representative examples here: 
stated: 
[The petitioner] was the first to apply a new technology called to map the 
faults in the field and then construct a reservoir model that was used for Reservoir 
Simulation to determine remaining oil and also exploit the field. 
The new mapping as a result of this technology led to increase in the oil in 
place by 30%, and reserves in the field by about 50 million barrels. 
[The petitioner] then planned 3 new horizontal wells which were then drilled and 
produced at a combined rate of 30,000 barrels of oil per day when they were put 
on production. To date, this is the highest rate ever produced from a_ 
well in_ 
stated: 
[The petitioner] has the potential to impact any projects he is part of. The work 
he has been involved in over the last several has put him at the top of those 
working on which is one of the world 
leaders in the area. [The petitioner] will continue to add tremendous value and 
impact in energy development for the United States. 
stated: 
• 
~g:mjtlcimt technical contributions to 
in the following two areas: 
Page 13 
• Structural framework mapping for ••••••••• 
The impact of his work in was to revitalize an aging 
_ resource and provide a platform for further economic development. His 
work on these fields led to the drilling of five (5) horizontal wells in_ 
and four (4) horizontal wells in The wells (combined) 
produced over 28,000 barrels of oil per day at their peak rates. 
The impact of his framework mapping efforts, based on newly reprocessed 
seismic data created a better understanding of the structure and potential satellite 
prospects in this asset area. These areas formed the basis for further exploration 
and have become the focus of subsequent teams directed exploitation and 
development efforts, extending the economic value of these assets to _ 
____ stated: 
[The petitioner] has demonstrated extraordinary abilities in development geology 
skills required for oil field development and exploitation. During my tenure with 
the Nigeria business unit, [the petitioner] did the geologic work to support re­
development of the This included re-mapping all geologic 
horizons and identifYing development well locations for both producing and 
injection wells. [The petitioner] proposed first application of 
horizontal well technology in Nigeria and the wells [the petitioner] proposed were 
extraordinarily successful. Several of the horizontal wells produced at rate of 
7000 BOPD when the average vertical well in the field produced 300 BOPD. The 
wells were successful because of the accurate geologic mapping and 
understanding of reservoir performance by [the petitioner]. Following the 
successful re-development of the approach applied by [the 
petitioner] was applied in other fields in Nigeria with great success. 
stated: 
[The petitioner's] best achievement while I was at_ was the •••• 1It 
development wells for which [the petitioner] proposed using the newly developed 
in house technology. Based on his proposal, 3 horizontal wells were 
drilled that, at their peak, produced over 8,000 barrels of oil per day each. This is 
extraordinary, because conventional wells drilled in the field before this time were 
producing only about 2,000 barrels of oil per day at their peak. These wells have 
produced over 9 million barrels each! The project paid out very quickly and the 
rate of return and [net present value] for the project is world class. 
Regarding we are not persuaded that counsel's arguments and the reference 
letters reflect original contributions of major significance to the field. As cited above, counsel 
Page 14 
and _ "was developed by 
criterion specifically requires original contributions, we cannot 
conclude that software or technology that was not developed or created by the petitioner is 
tantamount to his original contributions. It cannot suffice that merely applying the software or 
technology within demonstrates an original contribution to the field as 
a whole. 
Moreover, while the letters from and 
discuss the petitioner's successful mapping that led to the drilling of 
horizontal oil wells, they reflect the petitioner's involvement with_ The plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner's original contributions 
be "of a major significance in the field." While the petitioner may have contributed to the success 
of production of oil, the petitioner failed to establish that he has made contributions that 
have impacted or influenced the gas and oil production field as a whole and that are not limited to 
his contributions and impact within_. Although counsel claims on appeal that "[t]he reach 
of this work is extensive from individual households to entire countries," the record contains no 
evidence reflecting his impact be1lOn.a 
We note here that the letter from while generally describing the petitioner as a 
world leader in deep water to provide specific details to explain how his 
work has currently impacted his field so as to be considered original contributions of major 
significance. For example, stated that "[The petitioner] has the potential to impact 
any projects he is part of [emphasis added]." A petitioner cannot file a petition under this 
classification based on the expectation of future eligibility. The assertion that the petitioner's 
work is likely to be influential is not adequate to establish that his work is already recognized as 
major contributions in the field. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F .R. 
§§ I03.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg!. Commr. 1971). A petition 
cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 
Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further provides, citing 
Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider facts that come 
into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. 
While those familiar with his work generally describe it as "extraordinary" and "significant," 
there is insufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work is of major 
significance outside of This regulatory criterion not only requires the petitioner to 
make original contributions, but also requires those contributions to be significant to the field as 
a whole. We are not persuaded by vague, solicited letters that simply repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how the petitioner's contributions have already influenced the field. 
Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of prooe The lack of supporting evidence gives the AAO no basis to gauge the 
significance of the petitioner's present contributions. 
] Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aJfd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates. Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Page 15 
The phrase "major significance" is not defined in the statute or regulations. We must presume 
that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. 
Looking to the applicable dictionary definition, the word "major" is defined as "greater in 
importance or rank." Webster's New World College Dictionary 867 (4th Ed. 2008). The word 
"significance" is defined as "importance, consequence, moment." Id. at 1334. While these letters 
discuss the petitioner's personal achievements, there is no evidence that they constitute original 
contributions of "major significance" in his field. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter a/Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
original contributions of major significance. Furthermore, merely repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. 
v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
l'WUll:'llC:U m an end of the article, the 
aUlnOlrs al:krlov,ie(jrre the petitioner for providing them with recenltt~p~r~o~d~uc~t~io~n~d:at:a~fi:o~r~th~e~:: 
reservoirs. In addition, the petitioner submitted evidence from. 
that the article was cited nine times by others. We are not persuaded that a single article that 
simply acknowledges the petitioner for providing data is sufficient to demonstrate original 
contributions of major significance. Furthermore, the petitioner's contribution is restricted to the 
article and does not demonstrate that his data for the reservoirs impacted the field as a 
whole. 
Without additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been original, 
influential, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, we cannot 
conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish 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. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion 
based on the following three presentations: 
-Page 16 
I. 
2. 
3. 
In the director's decision, he found that the petitioner's presentations were not articles that were 
published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. On appeal, counsel 
argues: 
Each year, the a company-
wide request to scientists - U.S. and foreign - for abstracts. The selection 
process is highly competitive; of 300 submissions, only 10 to 15% are selected for 
presentation. Only the abstract is distributed to forum participants, and these 
abstracts may be accessed at any time by employees within the company on 
•••• intranet. [The petitioner] was selected three times via this process to 
present at the armual The is an internal forum. 
Approximately 400 earth scientists and professionals from business units across 
the corporation attend. In addition, select representatives from _ (outside 
.... 1 are given clearance to attend. 
At the outset, counsel failed to provide any documentary evidence supporting her assertions. 
Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 
1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of the 
alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media [emphasis added]." Generally, scholarly articles are written by and for 
experts in a particular field of study, are peer-reviewed, and contain references to sources used in 
the articles. In this case, the petitioner's presentations do not contain the characteristics of 
scholarly articles and are more for internal forums within than scholarly purposes. As 
there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's presentations were peer-reviewed, 
contain any references to sources, or were otherwise considered "scholarly," the petitioner's 
presentations are insufficient to meet the plain language of the criterion. 
Page 17 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires the authorship of scholarly 
articles "in professional or major trade publications or other major media." The petitioner failed 
to submit any documentary evidence establishing that intranet is a professional or 
major trade publication or other major media. We are not persuaded that the presentations, 
which can be accessed only by_ employees, can be considered as major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish 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 director found that although_has a distinguished reputation, the petitioner failed to 
establish that he performed in a leading or critical role. On appeal, counsel argues: 
First, serving as a Lead Geologist or Team Leader is a critical role when one 
considers that millions, perhaps billions of dollars are at stake in the projects 
Team Leaders for major U.S. oil companies supervise. The evidence of record 
also indicates that [the petitioner] has exercised substantial control over company 
and project personnel. Support for this proposition was shown in organizational 
charts, the duties of positions held by the petitioner, expert testimony and 
evidence relating to [the petitioner's] service as a Mentor of other geologists and 
engmeers. 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner claimed eligibility for this 
criterion based mainly on an organizational chart, which appears to have been created by the 
petitioner, and an affidavit by the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to submit sufficient 
documentary evidence supporting these assertions. 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)). Nonetheless, a review of the 
organizational chart reflects that the petitioner served in the following capacities: 
1. 
2. 
4. 
In addition, we cite representative examples of the petitioner'S recommendation letters here: 
stated: 
Page 18 
[The petitioner's] current involvement in the 
development project is also a testament to his 
from a team of leading experts to work on this project. This is the one of the five 
biggest offshore field development projects ever to be undertaken by_ 
Corporation worldwide. 
It is expected that when production from this field starts in 2008, the field will be 
producing 250,000 barrels of oil per day. 
stated: 
[The petitioner] has been a supervisor and a functional mentor wit! for 
at least 10 years. In his position as a functional mentor, he has judged and 
supervised the work of geologists and petroleum engineers on his team. He 
prepared performance plans and managed direct reports for promotion, and 
recommended employees for salary pay increases at year end during salary 
administration reviews. 
[The petitioner's] works in the 
relation to well planning and were 
of the wells had a combined initial production rate of about 20,000 barrels of oil 
per day. This was a significant increase relative to similar wells drilled in that 
area and planned and monitored by others. 
[The petitioner's] current position is as a 
This is one top for today, 
and it is expected to come on stream by June 2008 and produce 250,000 barrels of 
oil per day at peak production. In order to be chosen for this very important 
project a geologist must have unique skills. The is a mega project 
involving 5 oil company partners. The logistics of working together on this 
project are immense. Only those with top skills and vast experience have the 
wherewithal to work on_ [The petitioner] has superior skills in oil and 
gas exploration and development and I have no doubt that [this] will fulfill 
_ expectations on this project. 
•••••• stated: 
Because of his wide-ranging technical skills 
success, [the petitioner] was recruited from 
of 
and his proven track record of 
to assist in the 
for the purpose of determining the company's 
ownership interest. In his current position, [the petitioner] is responsible for 
providing high quality seismic interpretation of major oil reservoir intervals 
Page 19 
represented throughout the field. He will use state-of-the-art three dimensional 
(3D) subsurface seismic mapping and imaging technology to complete the 
interpretation. From his seismic interpretation, he will develop subsurface time 
and depth structure grids and maps that will be tied to existing well control in the 
field area. These maps will form the basis for the determination of stock tank 
original oil in place (STOOIP) estimates in the reservoir intervals for which he is 
responsible. [The petitioner] will actively participate in Seismic technical 
workshops and play a lead role in presenting his interpretation results to 
..... international partner companies. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the 
alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation [emphasis added]." In general, a leading role is evidence from the role 
itself, and a critical role is one in which the alien was responsible for the success or standing of the 
organization or establishment. In this case, while we agree with the director that has a 
distinguished reputation, we also agree with the director that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that 
he has performed in a leading or critical role consistent with the meaning of the plain language of 
the regulation. 
The letters provide only general statements without offering any specific information to establish 
how the petitioner's roles with were leading or critical. For example, in _ 
••• IIi., letter, we are not persuaded that the petitioner's 'judg[ing] and supervis[ing] the 
work of geologists and engineers on [the petitioner'S] team" is reflective of a leading 
or critical role for While the petitioner may have performed in various roles for 
_ in some asset areas in Nigeria, the petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence that 
distinguishes his roles from other employees in similar positions in . When compared to 
•••• as a whole, a multi-billion dollar corporation with over 60,000 employees worldwide,4 
the petitioner's roles fall far short of reflecting that his roles were leading or critical. 
Furthermore, according to the petitioner'S own organizational chart, the petitioner served as a 
team leader for approximately 10 - 15 employees, served as a functional mentor/supervisor for 
approximately 18 employees, and served as lead geologist for approximately three units. We are 
not persuaded that the petitioner's roles can be considered as leading or critical when compared 
to 60,000 other employees. 
We also note that some of the reference letters discuss the petitioner's roles with the 
project in the terms of the future. For example, stated 
that "[i]t is expected that when production from this field starts in 2008, the field will be 
producing 250,000 barrels of oil per day [emphasis added]." Further, stated 
that he has "no doubt that will fulfill expectations on this project [emphasis 
added]." In addition, stated that "[the petitioner] will use state-of-the-art three 
dimensional (3D) subsurface seismic mapping [emphasis added]," "[the petitioner] will develop 
subsurface time and depth structure grids and maps [emphasis added]," and "[the petitioner] will 
4 See screenshots from ••••••••••• submitted by the petitioner. 
.. 
Page 20 
actively participate in Seismic technical workshops [emphasis added]." Given the descriptions 
of roles with the project in terms of future applicability and 
determinations that may occur at a later date, it appears that the petitioner's accomplishments in 
his role have yet to be determined. The actual present role of the petitioner has not been 
established. Rather, the petitioner's references appear to speculate about the petitioner's role at 
some point in the future. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F .R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. (Reg!. Commr. 1971). A petition 
cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 
Matter of Izummi. 22 I&N Dec. at 175. That decision further provides, citing Matter of 
Bardouille, 18 r&N Dec. at 114, that we cannot "'consider facts that come into being only 
subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Moreover, uscrs may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. at 795. Further, merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not 
satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108. 
In this case, the record of proceeding does not establish that the petitioner was responsible for 
•••• success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Even if we found that the petitioner 
established that he performed in a leading or critical role for which we do not, the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to demonstrate his performance in a 
critical or leading role with more than one organization. In this case, the record reflects only his 
role with •• 1Ii 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
In the director's decision, he found that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires "[eJvidence that the 
alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation 
to others in the field." Based on a review of the record proceeding, the petitioner submitted 
sufficient docwnentary evidence to meet the plain language of the regulation. As such, we agree 
with the decision of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) 
a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the[irJ field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
" 
· . 
-Page 21 
recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ I I 53(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1115. The 
petitioner established eligibility for two of the criteria, of which at least three are required under 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case, many of the deficiencies in the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding 
discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In evaluating our final merits determination, we must look at the totality of the evidence to 
conclude the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 201 (b)(l)(A) of the Act. In this case, the 
petitioner claims eligibility based entirely on documentary evidence reflecting his employment 
with However, the record fails to reflect any sustained national or international 
acclaim, and the petitioner has only gained moderate recognition from individuals with whom he 
has worked at The accomplishments of the petitioner fall far short of establishing that he 
"is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" and that 
he "has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § lI53(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[aJ 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." The 
petitioner's documentary evidence must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight 
given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 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). While the petitioner failed to 
establish eligibility under the awards, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria, the 
petitioner relies on events occurring years prior to the filing of the petition on October 10, 2008, 
and the petitioner failed to submit sufficient documentary evidence reflecting recent events so as 
to establish sustained national or international acclaim. For example, under the awards criterion, 
npj'itif)np'r's contribution in the _ 
approximately four years prior to the 
filing of the petition. In addition, under the original contributions criterion, the . based 
his eligibility, in part, on his involvement with 
under the scholarly articles criterion, the most 
persuaded that the lack of more recent accomplishments or achievements demonstrates sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
While the petitioner failed to establish 
petitioner claimed eligibility based on 
under the awards \ollI.<OllUll, we note that the 
which only employees are 
" 
Page 22 
entitled to receive. Awards won by the petitioner that were limited by his employment status 
with do not indicate that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). There is no indication that the 
petitioner faced significant competition from throughout his field, rather than competition limited 
to a few individuals within uscrs has long held that even athletes performing at the 
major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 608995 Likewise, it does 
not follow that a geologist like the petitioner who has only been internally recognized within the 
company he works for should necessarily qualify for an extraordinary ability employment-based 
immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
While the petitioner established eligibility for the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
Gudging), we note that the petitioner based his eligibility on performance reviews of his team 
members for _ as well as technical internal reviews of projects and plans. An evaluation 
of the significance of the petitioner's judging experience is sanctioned under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d 
at 1121-11. We note that peer review of subordinate employees and internal reviews of work are 
routine job duties of an individual in the position of a team leader or supervisor. Without evidence 
that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed the work 
of other recognized geologists in the field and not limited to individuals within the 
i we cannot conclude that the petitioner's role as a periodic reviewer is indicative of his 
sustain international recognition and acclaim in the field. 
Furthermore, although the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the original contributions 
and critical role criteria, the petitioner based his claims on letters of recommendation, a personal 
affidavit, and a self-developed organizational chart. The petitioner failed to submit independent, 
objective, and sufficient supporting evidence reflecting that he "is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." Furthermore, it must be emphasized 
that the favorable opinions of experts in the field, while not without evidentiary weight, are not a 
5 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 
1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. III. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, 
Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent 
with at least one other court in this district, Crimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. IiI. September 
9,1993), and the definition of the tenn 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(21, and the discussion set forth in the 
preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
.' .. 
Page 23 
solid basis for a successful extraordinary ability claim. Unusual in its specificity, section 
203(b)(I )(A)(i) of the Act clearly requires "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. 
Again, uscrs may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Jd. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. Thus, the content of the experts' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation and work are important 
considerations. Here, the letters of recommendation are from individuals who have worked with 
him. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an 
immigrant petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would 
expect of a geologist who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
Finally, we cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive 
documentation" of his sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act 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. S6 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 
1991). While the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the critical role criterion, the petitioner 
based his eligibility on his roles with only one organization. In addition, although the petitioner 
demonstrated his memberships with _and., he failed to demonstrate that he is a member 
of any associations requiring outstanding achievements of their members. The petitioner failed to 
submit evidence demonstrating that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of the field." In addition, the petitioner has not demonstrated a "career of acclaimed work in 
the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
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. The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
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 and 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)(I )(A) of the Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
• . " • 
-Page 24 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
afJ'd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
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. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.