dismissed EB-1A Case: Human Resources Consultant

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
- 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 07 800 25654 
IN RE: 
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 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. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
41 rjij]plJf,l 
* 1'- 
eny Rhew 
;'chief, Administrative Appeals Office 1, 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in business. The director determined that the petitioner had not 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 the receipt of 
a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner 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 thls subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on July 29, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a human resources consultant. 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 eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply 
relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets 
a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not 
be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(3). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted two photographs of plaques from the Alberta 
Heart Foundation. The director concluded that these plaques, as evidenced on the plaques 
themselves, were awarded to the petitioner based "in appreciation for [the petitioner's] time and 
dedication in establishing a C.P.R. training network in Alberta" and "for outstanding service and 
leadership in the management and promotion of C.P.R. programs in Alberta." It is noted that that 
plaques were awarded to the petitioner in 1979 and 1981. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter, dated April 18, 1995, from - 
, stating that the petitioner "specialized in recruiting to professional and 
technical positions, providing training and development to management and senior personnel 
medical and social services agencies." The petitioner also submitted two certificates from the 
American Management Association reflecting that the petitioner successfully completed a 
"Supervisory Management Course - Management Principles" on June 1 1, 1976, and "Supervisory 
Management Course - Leadership Skills" on April 12, 1978. On appeal, counsel claims that the 
petitioner's certificates are evidence of his "experience in recruiting for professional and technical 
positions and providing training and development to management and senior personnel in the 
medical field and for governmental entities." 
We agree with the findings of the director. The petitioner's plaques are evidence of appreciation and 
accomplishment rather than a prize or award. Similarly, the petitioner's certificates reflect evidence 
of the successful completion of courses rather than a prize or award. Further, the plaques and 
certificates reflect regional or local recognition rather than nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in his field. In addition, the petitioner received the plaques and 
certificates between 1976 and 1981, a period of over 26 years from the date of filing of the petition. 
Even if we would recognize these plaques and certificates as nationally recognized awards under this 
criterion, which we do not, the petitioner failed to establish the sustained national or international 
acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification. 
The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that 
the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is 
his burden to establish every element of this criterion. 
 In this case, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner's plaques are tantamount to nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the petitioner's field of endeavor. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he 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 field for which classzfication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted an article, received for publication on January 7, 1976, 
distribution in normal and obstructed lung," written by 
The article fails to reflect the publication in which it was 
published. Notwithstanding, the article is not written about the petitioner; in fact, the only time the 
petitioner is mentioned is at the end of the article gratefully acknowledging the petitioner's technical 
assistance. 
The petitioner did not contest the decision of the director for this criterion on appeal. We agree with the 
finding of the director. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, or business-related 
contributions of a major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a Powerpoint presentation from the Department of Justice, Canada, Regional 
Human Resources Services, Prairie Region. In response to the director's request for evidence, counsel 
claimed that "[tlhe presentation was the first of its kind and has set a standard to which Justice Canada's 
Regional Directors for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have aspired." The petitioner submitted no 
documentary evidence establishing the significance of this presentation. 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 petitioner did not contest the decision of the director for this criterion on appeal. We agree with the 
finding of the director. 
Page 5 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted copies of several business cards reflecting the petitioner's positions as: 
Canada; 
Canada; 
5. Prairie Region, Department of Justice, 
Canada: 
The petitioner also submitted a letter, dated October 5, 1992, from the Treasury Board of Canada, 
Comptroller General regarding the petitioner's performance for 1991 - 1992 and objectives for 1992- 
1993. It is noted that the letter indicated that the petitioner was manager of the financial officer and 
internal auditor recruitment and development programs. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an organizational chart of the Prairie Region Structure, in which 
the Regional Director, Human Resources is highlighted. However, we note that the position of 
Regional Director, Human Resources is one of six other Regional Directors, which is fourth in the 
chain-of-command, including the petitioner's direct supervisor, the senior regional director. 
The director concluded that the petitioner failed to distinguish himself when compared to other 
human resource executives at a similar level or higher in the Canadian government and failed to 
establish that his contributions as a human resources executive led directly to any success that the 
Canadian Department of Justice may have enjoyed during his tenure so as to establish his leading or 
- 
critical role. On appeal, the petitioner submitted a previously submitted letter, dated October 8, 
2004, from for the Department of Justice in Canada, 
highly praising the petitioner for his dedication and work. 
The documentation does not establish that his positions were leading or critical to these agencies as a 
whole. For example, the record does not include detailed job responsibilities discussing the nature of 
the petitioner's duties and significant accomplishments and the importance of his role to the 
agencies' operations. The petitioner failed to establish that his leadership or critical roles directly led to 
the success and accomplishments at any of the agencies. There is no evidence demonstrating how the 
petitioner's roles differentiated hm from the other managers or regional directors. In this case, the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the success 
or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salaly or other signzficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a letter, dated April 22, 2004, from the Department of Justice, Canada 
indicating that the petitioner's position was reclassified, and he was promoted to the PE-06 group and 
level with a salary range of $76,696 to $89,384. In response to the director's request for evidence, 
counsel claimed that the petitioner's "salary was determined by using the top of the pay grid as the start 
for his performance pay and then adding bonus amounts plus benefits." Counsel failed to submit any 
evidence supporting these 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. at 534 n.2; Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. The petitioner 
failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing that he has commanded a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in his fields. 
The petitioner did not contest the decision of the director for this criterion on appeal. We agree with the 
finding of the director. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
The 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. 8 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.