dismissed EB-1A Case: Horse Training

privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
LIN 07 142 50081 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any mher inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
v 
z~ohn F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner, a Peruvian Paso horse ranch, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment- 
based immigrant pursuant to section 2030>)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 8 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined the petitioner 
had not established that the beneficiary has earned the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) and thus qualifies for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high 
standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 
60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a 
level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on April 17, 2007, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a Peruvian Paso horse trainer. The record reflects that the beneficiary has worked for 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the beneficiary meets a specific criterion, 
the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent 
with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted official results for the National Association of Breeders and Proprietors of 
Peruvian Paso Horses (ANCPCPP) Amances Show reflecting that the beneficiary's horse, = 
- won the "Champion of Champions" Gelding category in 2001, 2003, and 2004. The 
petitioner also submitted a July 11, 2007 letter fkom North American 
Peruvian Horse Association (NAPHA), stating: "[The beneficiary] has won the highest honors 
possible in the show arena, the . . . winning the coveted Champion of Champions title three 
times . . . at the Peruvian National Show in Lima, Peru." 
In light of the above, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jeld for which 
classz~cation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orj2elds. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, 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. 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
The petitioner submitted membership cards showing that the beneficiary is an Associate Member of 
the NAPHA and the ANCPCPP. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a copy of the NAPHA 
bylaws and a NAPHA membership application. According to this documentation, NAPHA 
membership is open to individuals and entities that "own a NAPHA-registered purebred Peruvian 
Horse." As such, we cannot conclude that NAPHA membership requires outstanding achievements. 
The petitioner's response included a membership application for the ANCPCPP. A document 
attached to the application lists eight "Requisites for Associating." These requirements include 
having a Peruvian Paso horse subscription in the Genealogical Registry and submission of reference 
letters from three associates. None of the eight requirements for admission to the ANCPCPP call for 
outstanding achievements. The petitioner also submitted the ANCPCPP's "Regulations for the 
Genealogy of the Peruvian Step Horse," but nothing in these regulations addresses the ANCPCPP's 
requirements for Associate Membership. 
Director-Secretary, ANCPCPP, stating: 
Through his many remarkable accomplishments as a horse breeder and trainer, [the 
beneficiary] is considered a "Class A Breeder" within ANCPCPP. Pursuant to ANCPCPP 
regulations, a Class A Breeder is: 
Those persons accredited with having registered under his name, with Genealogical 
Registry, at least one Peruvian Paso horse born each year for the last 6 years, or one 
horse in eight out of the last ten years. (ANCPCPP Regulation) 
A Class A breeder is the highest designation a breeder can achieve within our international 
organization. 
With regard to the ANCPCPP's requirements for designation as a breeder, Article 12 of 
"Regulations for the Genealogy of the Peruvian Step Horse" states: 
The natural or legal persons, being or not being associates of the ANCPCPP, in order to be 
considered breeders and to be allowed to register their breeder in the Registry, would need to 
fill out the respective form of journals with the data that the R.G. requires, declaring to know 
the present Regulations and whose dispositions are accepted without objections, nor any 
restrictions. 
The preceding information does not establish that designation as a Class A breeder requires 
outstanding achievements. 
In this case, the petitioner has not established that the preceding organizations require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
beneficiary's field or an allied one. 
 Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the jeld for which classijcation is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualify as ma~or media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local 
publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but 
would ualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community 
4 
papers. 
The petitioner submitted a photograph of the beneficiary's horse and three others appearing on the cover 
page of event program for the ANCPCPP's LXI Official National Contest of the Peruvian Paso Horse 
in 2006. The petitioner also submitted printouts of official results for various competitions in which 
the beneficiary participated. There is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that the 
preceding material was published in professional or major trade publications or some other form of 
major media. Further, the plain language of th~s regulatory criterion requires that the published material 
be "about the alien." The preceding material does not meet this requirement. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an April 23, 2004 article 
in El Comercio, but the article only mentions the beneficiary's name in passin and its author was 
not identified. The petitioner also submitted an advertisement for 
 showing its 
horses for sale in the "Stallion Issue" of Peruvian Classified. This advertisement, which is not the 
result of independent media reportage, lists the beneficiary as the horses' trainer, but it does not 
qualify as "published material about the alien . . . in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media." The petitioner's response also included the event programs for the ANCPCPP's LVIII 
and LIX Official National Contests of the Peruvian Paso Horse in 2003 and 2004. Rather than 
discussing the beneficiary or his work, these event programs simply list his name in the competitive 
results sections. Further, these program booklets were not accompanied by certified English 
language translations as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion and the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3). Finally, there is no evidence showing that the preceding publications 
quali@ as professional or major trade publications or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner also submitted a DVD copy of a television interview of the beneficiary conducted by 
The video footage was unaccompanied by a 
2 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 6 
certified English language translation as required by this regulatory criterion and the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). Further, there is no evidence showing that the preceding video footage was 
broadcast by major media outlets, that the footage aired nationally or internationally, or that it was 
otherwise distributed in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedjeld of specij?cation for which classiJication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability 
must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
beneficiary's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight 
given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.50(3)(iv), therefore, depends 
on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(h)(2). For example, judging a national competition for 
professional riders is of far greater probative value than judging a local competition involving youth 
or amateur riders. 
beneficiary stating: 
It is my great pleasure to inform you that we have received confirmation by telephone, that 
you were selected to the post of Judge of the ANCPCPP, by the Board of Directors at their 
most recent meeting on February 5,2007. 
To this effect, please note that you may now initiate the process for your designation as Non- 
resident Judge, submitting all of the required documents directly to my attention. 
The June 6, 2007 letter from submitted in response to the director's 
request for evidence states: "[The beneficiary] was selected to the post of Judge by the ANCPCPP 
in February 2007. Of course there are certain preliminaries that [the beneficia&] must comply with 
before full designation as a Non-resident Judge, such as participating as a "student" judge for three 
competitions." 
The beneficiary's selection to the post of Judge is not tantamount to his "participation" as a judge. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation, either 
individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the . . . field." There is no evidence 
predating the filing of the petition which shows that the beneficiary has served as a judge for 
Page 7 
ANCPCPP competition. For example, there is no evidence showing that the beneficiary completed 
his preliminary requirements for full designation as a Non-resident judge or that he had participated 
in such a capacity for the ANCPCPP as of the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Cornrnr. 1971). The record lacks evidence showing the 
specific competitions judged by the beneficiary, the names of those he evaluated, their level of 
expertise, his dates of participation, and documentation of his assessments. Without evidence 
showing, for example, that the beneficiary's activities involved judging top competitors or were 
otherwise consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of his field, 
we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of several reference letters praising the beneficiary's 
talent as Peruvian Paso horse trainer and discussing his activities in the field. Talent and success in 
one's field, however, are not necessarily indicative of original contributions of major significance. 
The record lacks evidence showing that the beneficiary has made original contributions that have 
significantly influenced or impacted his field. 
As Horse Trainer of Peruvian Pasos, [the beneficiary] has been responsible for training, 
evaluating, and transporting the stock on the ranch for shows. The knowledge and expertise 
of [the beneficiary] have been critical and key to the success of - as we 
strive to improve the quality and quantity of our Peruvian Paso breed for 2007 and future 
showing seasons under his stewardship. 
Through his participation as a professional competitor [the beneficiary] has gained the 
respect of his peers and breeders of the Peruvian Paso as an honest and reliable person with 
outstanding sportsmanship conduct. 
It is my professional opinion that [the beneficiary] has attained the status as an internationally 
recognized Peruvian Paso Horse trainer with and extraordinary ability in training, breeding 
and showing the breed. 
Upon review of his credentials, [the beneficiary] is an individual of extraordinary ability as a 
horse trainer. He has been a professional trainer of Peruvian Paso horses for nearly 20 years. 
Page 8 
He has worked exclusively for ranches in Peru with stellar reputations as breeders and 
trainers of Peruvian Pasos and has earned recognition as a remarkable horse trainer . . . . 
[The beneficiary] has also garnered several prestigious awards as a trainer and presenter of 
Peruvian Pasos in the industry. 
The beneficiary's competitive awards have previously been addressed under the awards criterion at 
8 C.F.R. !$ 204.5@)(3)(i). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and 
distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for awards and original contributions of 
major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. If evidence 
sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the 
requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. 
I have been working with and riding Peruvian Paso Horses for approximately six years. I 
acquired my three Peruvian Paso horses from - because [the beneficiary] 
trained them personally. 
[The beneficiary's] expertise in training horses and communicating that with us was 
invaluable. 
[The beneficiary] has surpassed all standards and ethics regarding the breeding and training 
of Peruvian Paso Horses. 
[The beneficiary] is without comparison the best Peruvian Paso horse trainer I have had the 
pleasure to meet. 
1 have worked with [the 
 horse shows and have been there to see him 
take several horses from 
 , his training ranch, to champions of show. 
I now own three, out of seven horses at my ranch, that have come from - 
and been trained by [the beneficiary]. 
The record reflects that the beneficiary is a skilled horse trainer, but there is no evidence showing 
that he developed original training techniques, as opposed to methodologies passed down from his 
own tutelage in the industry. Further, even if the training techniques utilized by the beneficiary were 
found to be original, there is nothing to demonstrate that these techniques have had major 
significance in his field. While the beneficiary has had success in training, breeding, and showing 
Peruvian Paso horses for several ranches, these activities are not tantamount to original contributions 
of major significance in the field consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
The letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner do not specify exactly what the 
beneficiary's original contributions to his industry have been, nor do they provide an explanation 
indicating how any such contributions were of major significance in his field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of 
major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, that it has some meaning. While the beneficiary has earned the admiration of those offering 
letters of support, the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that his work has 
had major significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the 
beneficiary's influence on other horse trainers nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the 
field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
regulatory criterion. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the 
cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Cornmr. 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 
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. Thus, the 
content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the beneficiary'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 that one would expect of an individual who has 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. Without extensive 
documentation showing that the beneficiary's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed 
throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major 
significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in profssional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, counsel acknowledges that "[tlhe beneficiary has 
not authored or published media." After the preceding acknowledgment, however, counsel argues 
that the DVD copy of the beneficiary's television interview relates to this criterion. This evidence has 
already been addressed under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Being interviewed 
Page 10 
for a television program does not constitute one's "authorship of scholarly articles in the field." As 
such, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the jeld at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, counsel states: 
 "The evidence submitted 
establishes that the beneficiary works in a field requiring a specialized art in riding, exhibiting and 
showcasing the animals he has personally trained based on vital requirements of the ANCPCPP to 
preserve the culturally unique breed of horse." The documentation submitted by the petitioner, 
however, does not establish that the beneficiary's field is in the arts. It is evident from the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(vii) that this criterion applies to the visual arts (such 
as sculpting and painting) rather than to the beneficiary's industry. Moreover, it is inherent to the field 
of Peruvian Paso horse training to compete at shows. The competitive horse shows in which the 
beneficiary participated have already been addressed under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3)(i). The record does not reflect that the beneficiary paformed at a noncompetitive artistic 
exhibition designed to showcase the top of his field. Upon review, we find the director properly 
considered the evidence submitted, thoroughly addressed counsel's arguments and appropriately 
addressed the evidence and arguments in his decision. The petitioner does not specifically challenge 
the director's findings on appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizah'ons or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that the beneficiary performed a leading or critical role for an organization or 
establishment with a distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of the 
beneficiary's role within the entire organization or establishment and the reputation of the 
organization or establishment. 
The record does not include evidence showing that 
 has a distinguished 
reputation. Further, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's role for the ranch was 
leading or critical. In response to the director's request for evidence, counsel states that "[tlhe 
beneficiary is the sole member, trainer, coach, and breeder consultant of This 
statement is not corroborated in the t from which indicates that he owns and 
operates.. Mr. & lists the beneficiary's responsibilities, but he does not 
state that the beneficiary is the "sole" performer of roles identified by counsel. 
 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). In this case, there is no 
evidence demonstrating how the beneficiary's role differentiated him from the other workers at m 
let alone its ownership. Mr. 
 letter states that his ranch has sold three horses 
trained by the beneficiary for approximately $5000 each, but it does not establish that the beneficiary 
Page 11 
was responsible for the ranch's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading 
or critical role'' and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary meets only one of the regulatory 
criteria, three of which are required to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner 
has failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or 
that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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 beneficiary 
as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
6 204.5(h)(2). 
Documentation in the record indicates that the alien was the beneficiary of an approved 0-1 
nonimrnigrant visa petition filed in his behalf by - While USCIS has approved an 
0-1 nonirnrnigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary, that prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS fiom denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased standard. It 
must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonirnmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 
2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-229 
nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply 
approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M 
Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556,2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals 
do not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of 
the beneficiary's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Cornrn. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest 
that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. 
Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1 988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonirnrnigrant 
petition on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision 
of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct 51 (2001). 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
beneficiary's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant 
to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.