dismissed EB-1A Case: Grain Industry

fll rrn JC COpy 
DATE: JUN 20 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Uencficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Scrvil'c~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachu~etts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(I )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, H U.S.C § 1153(b)( 1 )(A) 
ON LlEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
rdated tll this malter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 CP.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 CF.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
-'4...~ Q_­()< 0-- £)~-
fif-
Chid, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on January 14,2011. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision with 
the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on February 8, 2011. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to counsel's brief tiled in support of the appeal, the petitioner seeks classification as an 
"alien of extraordinary ability" in "the field of the grain industry in China," pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The 
director determined that the petitioner has not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section § 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the 
Act; 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 of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(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 submits it brief, asserting that the director erred. Counsel also submits 
approximately seven hundred pages of supporting documents, most which were previOUSly 
submitted to the director. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not 
established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the AAO finds that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). As such, the AAO finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated that he is one of the 
small percentage who are at the very top of the field and he has not sustained national or 
international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). Accordingly, the AAO must dismiss the 
petitioner's appeal. 
I. 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, 
Page :1 
(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 Wist Cong., 2d 
Sess. 5'i (1'i'iO); 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. 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's 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 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USCfS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2(10). Although the court upheld 
the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of the 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. I With respect to the criteria at 8 CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while US CIS 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." Kazarian, 5% F.3d at 1121-
22. 
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)." Kazarian, 
590 F.3d at 1122 (citing to 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3». 
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 this case, the AAO concurs with the 
director's tinding that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent requirement of presenting at 
least three of the ten qualifying evidence under 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
heyond Ihose sel forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards F)r excellence in the field of endeavor, 8 c'F,R, § 204,5(h)(3)(i), 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion because he has received the following awards: 
(I) 
on October 1, 1999, 
(2) 
(4) iiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii __ ..... 
March 2009, and 2006 
March 2007, 
(5) ....................... in April 2008, and 
(6) Awards presented to the petitioner's companies, 
Based on the evidence in the record, the AAO concurs with the director's finding that none of the 
awards constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. First, although the petitioner has an online printout from the Chinese 
government's official web portal stating that is the highest executive organ of State 
nm",," and the of State administration, he has not, however, established that the award 
- constitutes a nationally or 
gram industry, Specifically, the 
record lacks evidence relating nomination or selection process of the award in 1999, or 
information on who or how many people were considered or selected for the award in 1999, In 
addition, the AAO to the articles entitled 
source either wikipedia,com 
or baidu,com, and there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from these two open, 
user-edited internet sites,] See Badasa v, Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cif. 20(8), 
~ Counsel lIoes not claim that the petitioner meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this lIecision. 
; Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer entitled "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO 
GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY": 
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary 
association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of 
human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet 
connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has 
Page 5 
Moreover, even if the AAO were to consider the ish translation of the baidu.com article entitled 
the AAO would not conclude that the award 
constitutes a nationally or internationally recogn prize or award for excellence in the field of 
grain industry. Specifically, according to the document, someone who is a "law abiding individuallJ 
who [has] high professional ethics, served as [a] model in [his/her] industry, [has a] senior 
professional and technical position[]" and is a graduate of Chinese Academy of Science or Chinese 
Academy of Engineering may be presented with the award. Furthennore, the award aims to "further 
promoter] the growth of advanced experts in each field of China," rather than to award people who 
have already achieved excellence in their respective field. In short, the evidence is insufficient to 
establish that the award constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence. 
petitioner 
discusses 
he has not established that his two Entrepreneur 
constitute or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
grain industry. Specifically, the record lacks evidence relating to who or how many 1''''''1'''' 
considered or selected for the award in 2006 or 2009. the document entitled 
provides some information nomination process, including 
are nominated from the organization's provincial branches, it provides no 
information on the number of candidates or award winners in either 2006 or 2009. A list of winners 
from the association's website includes 23 names, which is not indicative of a prize or award for 
excellence that is nationally or internationally recognized. 
Moreover, as noted by the director, it is clear from the document that only executives of "current 
organizational for the award. 
Although 
stated in his December 23, 2010 s 
more than 1,000 companies, comprising of approximately 6,000 facilities, 
and about 30.000 individual members," he did not provide specific membership infonnation for 
200A or 200'!. He also did not provide infonnation as to the non-member population in 2006 or 
200'!. Furthermore, the evidence submitted to show the recognition of the petitioner's awards is 
necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with 
complete, accurate or reliable information . 
. . . Wikipcdia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The 
content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered 
by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the 
relevant fields . ... 
See http:/h.::n.wikipcuia.org./wikilWikipedia:General_disclaimer, accessed on June 5, 2012, a copy of which is 
im:orporalcd inlo the record or proceeding. 
Pagc 6 
from the entity that issued the award. Such self-promotional evidence has minimal evidentiary 
value. See Braga v. Poulos. No. CV 06-5105 SJO 10 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007), aiI'd, 2009 WL 
604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on 
the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). The petitioner has not 
supported the self-promotional evidence with more independent evidence, such as, but not limited to, 
independent journalistic coverage of the 2006 or 2009 award in nationally or internationally 
circulated publications. 
In addition, the AAO finds that information on other award recipients 
- and their professional career is insufficient to establish the prestige or significance of the 
petitioner's awards or the entity that presented the awards. Also, the petitioner has not provided the 
source of the information on the two individuals, nor has he established that the information on them 
is complete or accurate. In short, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the petitioner's two 
awards, received in 2006 and 2009, from constitute 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the grain industry. 
Third, although the petitioner has provided an 
from that discusses 
award requirements, he has not established the award constitutes a 
or nte.rn'ltieJn3Illy recognized prize or award for excellence in the grain industry. 
Specifically, the record is devoid of evidence relating to who or how many people were considered 
for the award in 2009. 
The evidence also fails to establish the prestige of 
October 29 2010 online' from includes an "association 
is no evidence that the 
which presented the petitioner with an award, is the same as the 
Even assuming _ that they were the same organization, the 
the online printouts from 
not constitute objective and independent evidence showing the s prestIge or, more 
specifically, the national or international recognition of the award, as the petitioner has not provided 
any evidence on the nature or reputation of either website. In short, the evidence is insufficient to 
establish that the petitioner's Top 10 Outstanding Individuals award constitutes a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. 
Fourth, ~~~i~h~a~s~p~r~ov~l~'ded an English translation entitled 
~ that discusses the selection of 
.1111!!1 •••••• ' he has not established that either 
presented in 2009, or 
presented in 2007, constitutes a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of grain industry. Specifically, 
the record lacks evidence on who or how many people were nominated, considered or selected for 
the award in 2009 or 2007. The record also lacks evidence that the field recognizes the award, such 
Page 7 
as hut not limited to general or trade media coverage of the award selections. ~ 
suhmitted April 2009 coverage of the petitioner's receipt of this award at __ 
The 
reS'''llt'u in 2009, although the document 
provides some information on the nOlmillatlion 
the number of candidates or award winners in 2009. Also, as 
the document is dated August 24, 2009, after the petitioner was presented the award in March 2009, 
the petitioner has not shown that the award requirements discussed in the document applied to his 
selection. 
As to the award presented in 2007, the petitioner has not provided any information on who or how 
many people were considered or selected for the award in 2007. Indeed, other than the Certificate of 
Honor, dated March 2007, the record contains no other document that explains or discusses in detail 
this award. 
Furthermore, the documents submitted to show the recognition of the petitioner's two awards is from 
the the entity that issued the awards, and the entity's 
Such self-promotional evidence has minimal 
evidentiary value. See Braga, No. CV 06-5105 SJO at 10. The petitioner has not supported the self-
promotional evidence with more independent evidence, such as, but not limited to, independent 
journalistic coverage of the awards in nationally or circulated Also, the 
petitioner's evidence that "has received In 
insl~fficiellt to the 
petltloner's presented in 2009 and 2007, meet this 
criterion. In short, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the awards constitute nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. 
Fifth, although the petitioner has provided an English translation entitled 
••••. he has not established that the award constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award for excellence in the grain industry. Specifically, although the document states that 
the award ""is one of the country's highest awards," the AAO affords the document, whose source 
and accuracy is unknown, minimal evidentiary value. Even if the petitioner had shown that the 
document was from the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, the AAO would find that it 
constitutes self-promotional evidence and afford it minimal evidentiary weight. See Braga, No. CV 
06-5105 SJO at 10. The petitioner has not established the prestige or significance of either the award 
or the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, as he has not supported the self-promotional evidence 
with more objective and independent evidence, such as, but not limited to, independent journalistic 
coverage of the 2008 award in nationally or internationally circulated publications. While the 
petitioner submitted a one-sentence announcement of the petitioner's receipt of this medal on the 
the record contains no evidence regarding the significance of this 
Page H 
Moreover, the record lacks evidence on who or how many people were nominated, considered or 
selected for the award in 2008. Although the petitioner has provided some information on the 
nomination process, he has provided no information on the number of candidates or award winners 
in 2008. In short, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the award constitutes a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. 
Sixth, the petitioner 
including the 
constitute a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence in the Initially, the AAO notes that none of 
the awards list the petitioner or the petitioner's companies. The petitioner did submit an article 
Once again, however, the 
record contains no evidence as to the independence or significance of this website. 
Also, the petitioner has not provided information on the nomination or selection process of each 
award or information on what or how many companies were considered or selected for each award 
in the relevant year. In addition, the plain language of the criterion requires that the petitioner be the 
recipient of the qualifying awards, not the petitioner's companies. USCIS may not utilize novel 
substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5. Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1221, citing Love Korean Church v. ChertofJ, 549 F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir. 2008). 
Although counsel asserts that the success of the companies was a result of the petitioner's leadership, 
he has not shown that the petitioner meets the criterion under its plain meaning. In short, the 
evidence is insufficient to establish that the petitioner has received awards that constitute nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. 
The record contains Internet profiles of individuals who have won similar awards but, significantly, 
the petitioner did not submit similar profiles of himself. These profiles cannot establish that the 
petitioner's awards in and of themselves, rather than the particular awardees named in the profiles, 
are nationally or internationally recognized. 
Accordingly, based on the evidence in the record, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not met 
this criterion, because he has not presented documentation of his receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Page 9 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
pelllLlUlleI meets this criterion because he was appointed as a councilman for 
second congressional conference in October 2000. 
in April 2009. As supporting evidence, the petitioner has 
ap~)Olfllmem certificate, dated October 2000. (2) evidence that 
(3) a 
from 
and (5) a December 23, 2010 letter from 
The petitioner has also provided documents 
9th Board of Committee of All-China Youth 
Federation in July 2000, a member of the China Enterprise Confederation & China Enterprise 
Directors Associ' 
Based on the evidence in the record, the AAO concurs with the director's finding that the petitioner 
has not met this criterion. As the director noted, the plain language of the criterion requires the 
petitioner to show (1) membership in associations, (2) that the associations are in the petitioner's 
field, (3) that the associations require outstanding achievements of their members, and (4) that the 
outstanding achievements are judged by recognized national or international experts in the relevant 
disciplines or fields. The petitioner's evidence is insufficient to meet this standard for any of the 
organizations for which the petitioner is a member. Specifically, the evidence fails to establish that 
any of the organizations require outstanding achievements from the petitioner, as judged by 
"recognized national or international " For the evidence shows that to 
become a member of an applicant must show 
"great intluenee in the food and accomplishment within 
the field." the record A list 
which appears to cover 
includes 195 names. Similarly, 
hich has 436,000 members, requires members to show "extraordinary contributions to 
the relevant industry" and "significant social influence" and "great contributions to the society." 
While the petitioner's evidence demonstrates that the Conference of All China Representatives is 
responsible for recommending membership applications, the evidence ultimately fails to establish 
that recognized national or international experts judge the membership. 
the record contains no evidence indicating that in 2000, the 
required outstanding achievements of its 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
has failed to evidence on uirements for either the 
Page ]() 
Accordingl y, based on the evidence in the record, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not met 
this criterion, because he has not presented documentation of his 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, See 8 c'F,R, 
§ 204's(h)(3)(ii). 
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. 8 c'F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
petitioner 
,,[ t Jhese are well known national level competitions within the grain industry of China." Based on 
the evidence in the record, the AAO concurs with the director's finding that the petitioner has met 
this criterion. See 8 c'F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
I:'vidence of the alien's original scientific. scholarly, artistic. athletic, or business-related 
colllrihutiollS of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
machines. 
November 23, 2010 personal statement, he invented the_ 
"dramatically improved" the grain manufacturing process in China. In his 
Based on the evidence in the record, the AAO concurs with the director's finding that the petitioner 
has not met this criterion, because he has not shown that his inventions constitute contributions of 
major significance in the grain industry. Regarding patents, the AAO has held that a patent is not 
necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree of influence over the field as a 
whole. See Maller of New York State Dep't of Transp. , 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 n.7 (Comm'r 1998). 
Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. A patent 
recognizes the originality of the idea, but it does not demonstrate that the petitioner has made a 
contribution of major significance in the field through his development of this idea. Although 
__ made the conc1usory statement that the petitioner's three machines "greatly advanced 
grain processing technology in China," the AAO concludes that the conc1usory assertion is 
insufficient to show that the machines constitute contributions of major significance in the field. See 
175ti, Inc. v. Attorney General of United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, (D.C. Dist. 1990). Similarly, the 
AAO finds that the conclusory statements from China National Association of Grain Sector's Sui 
Page 11 
Fengfu that the machines "essentially changed the way of the grain process" insufficient to meet the 
requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has provided no evidence that companies in the grain 
industries, other than perhaps his companies, use or intend to use any of the three machines. For 
example, the record contains no licensing or sales contracts or publications in trade journals 
discussing how the equipment has revolutionized the grain industry. 
stating that the petitioner's 
grain processors a much more advanced system and it was immediately 
placed in all major grain companies. It revolutionized this critical stage of food production." 
Although the letter mentions the adoption of the machine by "all major grain companies," the letter 
fails to provide specific information on the grain companies that use the machine, or any support to 
conclude that these unnamed grain companies constitute "major grain companies." The 
lacks sales data, licensing agreements or trade journal coverage on this machine to 
Moreover, even if the AAO were to conclude that 
constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field, the AAO would 
find that the petitioner has not met this criterion because the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires evidence of qualifying contributions in the plural, consistent with 
the statutory requirement for extensive documentation. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. As 
such, a single example of a contribution is insufficient evidence of contributions of major 
significance in the plural. 
Accordingly, based on the evidence in the record, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not met 
this criterion, because he has not presented evidence of his original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
f,'vidence oj/he alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
According to the petitioner's November 23, 2010 personal statement, he has authored two books that 
discuss the .. in China. One of the 
Even if the petitioner did publish a second book, the AAO, without any information on the second 
book, would conclude that the petitioner has not shown that his second book constitutes a scholarly 
article in the grain industry or that it was published in a professional or major trade publication or 
Page 12 
other major media. As such, even if the AAO were to find that the petitioner's "Research on 
Regional Cooperation in Northeast Asia under Globalization" constitutes a scholarly article, the 
AAO would nonetheless find that the petitioner has not met this criterion because the plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires evidence of qualifying scholarly articles in 
the plural. This is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive documentation. See 
section 203(b)( 1 )(A)(i) of the Act. 
Accordingly, based on the evidence in the record, the AAO disagrees with the director and 
concludes that the petitioner has not met this criterion, because he has not presented evidence of his 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
estahlishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In counsel's December 31, 2010 response to the director's RFE, counsel asserted that the evidence 
shows the petitioner's "executive leadership of his two companies and the highly influential role his 
companies play in the grain industry in China." Counsel also submitted evidence of the petitioner's 
roles for the companies. Although the record contains evidence on the companies' purported 
awards, it lacks specific information relating to the companies that received the awards. Moreover, 
on appeal, the petitioner has not continued to assert that the petitioner meets the leading or critical 
role criterion, and no arguments were made on this issue in counsel's 25-page brief filed in support 
of the appeal. As such, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not 
timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. United States Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 
20(5); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CY-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 
2011) (the United States District Court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
Page 13 
Based on the evidence in the record, the AAO concurs with the director's finding that the petitioner 
has not met this criterion. First, as noted by the director, the petitioner has not shown that the article 
"Top Executive Pay and Firm Performance in China" is an authoritative treatise or reliable reference 
to establish top executives' salary in China. Although counsel asserts that the authors of the article 
are from highly ranked universities and business schools, counsel has provided insufficient evidence 
on the reliability of the information contained in the article. 
Second, the article does not specifically focus on the petitioner'S field, which is the grain industry. 
Rather, the article discusses executives' salary in China across many fields. The article also does not 
contain salary data from the relevant years, as it only discusses data from 1998 to 2002. The 
evidence provided by the petitioner, however, pertains to his salary from 2009 to 2010. As such, the 
AAO concludes that the article fails to support a finding that the petitioner's 2009 and 2010 salary is 
indicative that he has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services 
in relation to others in his field. 
Third, although thc petitioner provided an online printout from hlj.lss,gov.cn, he has not provided 
any information as to the reliability of the information retrieved from the website, Also, the salary 
level index is limited to the "Heilongjiang Proviance [sic]," and relates to both the food and oil 
industry, without specific information on the grain industry. As such, the AAO concludes that the 
online printout fails to support a finding that the petitioner's 2009 and 2010 salary is indicative that 
he has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to 
others in his field. 
Finally, evidence of the average wage in an occupation does not demonstrate what a high wage is in 
that occupation. Merely documenting wages above the average wage in the occupation is 
insufficient evidence under the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 c'F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(ix), which requires evidence of a high salary in relation to others in the field. 
Accordingly, based on the evidence in the record, the AAO concludes that the petitioner has not met 
this criterion, because he has not presented evidence that he has commanded a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. See 8 c'F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(ix). 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of 
evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Page 14 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, 
in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"Ievel 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," and (2) "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)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top 
of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion 
in a final merits determination. 4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to 
satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). [d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
, The AAO maintains de !lOVO review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
20(4). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the Act; section 
204(h) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
* Im.I(f)(l)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USClS, is 
the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).