dismissed EB-1A Case: Horticulture

emIttc COW 
U.S. Department of Itlomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofddministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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. 5 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 further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. § 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
U 
9 John F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was initially denied by the Director, 
California Service center.' On appeal, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) remanded the matter 
for fwther action. The matter is now before the AAO upon certification of the Nebraska Service Center 
Director's subsequent, adverse decision. The decision of the director will be affirmed and the petition 
will be denied. 
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. fj 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) 
 the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). 
I The petitioner was initially represented in this matter by- 
This petition, filed on May 13, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a horticulturist. As the facts and procedural history have been adequately documented in 
the previous decision of the AAO, we will only repeat certain facts as necessary here. 
The director initially denied the petition on July 20, 2005, finding that the petitioner failed to 
establish sustained national or international acclaim and that he is recognized as one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The director also determined that 
the petitioner had not submitted clear evidence that he would continue to work in his area of expertise in 
the United States as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5). In the AAO's August 3 1, 
2006 decision on appeal, the AAO concurred with the director's determination but remanded the 
matter for the purpose of issuing a request for evidence to the petitioner informing him of the 
deficiencies in the record as they relate to the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h). Upon 
remand, the director issued a request for evidence on March 30, 2007, and afforded the petitioner 84 
days in which to provide additional documentation. The petitioner failed to respond to the director's 
request for evidence. On February 25, 2009, the director again denied the petition finding that the 
petitioner had failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he 
meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). The director certified his 
decision to the AAO for review and notified the petitioner that he could submit a brief to the AAO 
within 30 days of service of the director's decision. To date, no further submission has been 
received. Accordingly, the record is considered to be complete as it now stands. 
Upon review, we concur with the director's findings. The relevant evidence as it relates to the 
statutory and regulatory requirements was discussed in the director's decision and in the previous 
decision of the AAO. The petitioner has submitted no further evidence since the issuance of the 
AAO's appellate decision. The evidence of record does not establish that the petitioner has 
distinguished himself to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. Further, there 
is no clear evidence showing that the petitioner will continue to work in his area of expertise in the 
United States. Consequently, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and his petition must be denied. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision of February 25,2009 is affirmed. The petition is denied.