dismissed EB-1A Case: Information Technology And Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
-- 
LIN 07 051 50972 
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. !j 1 153(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. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
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 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. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in the sciences and business. 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). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$204.5(h)(3). Counsel further states: "[The petitioner] is both a ranking techno-executive and a 
brilliant research engineer with a long career of scientific achievement. He has performed as an 
extraordinary research scientist, engineer and business executive." 
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. 3 204.5(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. 3 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on December 8, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as an executive specializing in information technology (IT) and business 
development. The petitioner received his Ph.D. in Venture Technology Management from Hoseo 
University in Korea in 2005. According to a personal statement accompanying the petition, the 
petitioner has been a Visiting Scholar at the George Mason University School of Public Policy since 
2003. The petitioner also states that he provides consulting services for Korean corporations in 
Washington, D.C. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner refers to himself 
as a "Techno Executive" and submits a letter from the President of SCONET Co. Ltd. of Korea 
stating that the petitioner has served as its "Outside Director and U.S. Representative" since 
September 2006. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In a document accompanying the petition entitled "Honors and Awards," the petitioner claims to 
have received the following: 
1. "Academic Award, Graduated 'Summa Cum Laude' with Ph.D. from Hoseo University;" 
2. "Best Performance Award, Hummingbird Korea" (2001); 
3. "Special Contribution Award from the Daedeok Research Complex" (1 996); 
4. "'Letter of Appreciation' from the Korea Power Engineering Company" (1 989); and 
5. "Presidential Award for Best Employee from the Korea Power Engineering Company" 
(June 1984) 
In addressing the preceding honors and awards claimed by the petitioner, the director's decision 
stated: "[NJo evidence such as certificates that would establish that the awards were actually issued 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
to the petitioner or evidence to establish the significance of these awards has been submitted." We 
concur with the director's finding. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a certification from the "Dean of Hoseo Graduate School of 
Venture" stating that the petitioner "graduated as the best scientific achievement student" at the 2005 
Spring graduation. University study is not a field of endeavor, but rather training for future 
employment in a field of endeavor. The petitioner's receipt of an academic honor limited to students 
at his university reflects local or institutional recognition rather than national or international 
recognition. Further, earning a "student" award is not an indication that the recipient "is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner's receipt of such an award offers no meaningful comparison between him and 
experienced professionals in the field who have long since completed their educational training. 
With regard to items 2 through 5, there is no evidence from the presenting organizations showing 
that the petitioner actually received those honors. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornrn. 1972)). A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by 
the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
 In this instance, there is no 
evidence establishing that the petitioner received items 2 through 5 or that they were nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards. 
The petitioner's appellate submission includes a May 16, 2008 "Certificate of Career" from the 
Korea Power Engineering Company stating that he received a "Top employee award in Oct. 1984." 
This award, limited by its terms to employees of the Korea Power Engineering Company, reflects 
institutional recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
The petitioner also submits a document issued by the Chairman of the Knowledge Management & 
Electronic Document Management System (KM&EDMS) Committee, Korea Software Association, 
reflecting that the petitioner received a "Medallion of Merits" in September 2003. The document 
states: "You have demonstrated outstanding capability and made devotional efforts in the capacity 
of operation member of KM&EDMS Committee since foundation in 1997 until now and in the 
capacity of an Auditor of Committee since February 2001." This honor reflects organizational 
recognition for the petitioner's service on the KM&EDMS Committee rather than national or 
international recognition. 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 ths instance, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner's honor had a significant level of recognition beyond the 
presenting committee. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that his "Medallion of Merits" 
constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzJ%cation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a 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, 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. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate reflecting his participation in an instructional seminar at an 
international meeting organized by the Secretary of Public Education, the Government of Jalisco, 
and the University of Guadalajara in Mexico in August 2005. This certificate was not accompanied 
by a certified English language translation. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), any document 
containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language 
translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that the petitioner's participation in this instructional seminar was 
tantamount to his membership in an association in the field requiring outstanding achievement. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a certificate from the Director of the Korea Terminology Research 
Center for Language and Knowledge Engineering (KORTERM), Korea Advanced Institute of 
Science and Technology (KAIST), stating: "I certify that [the petitioner] was a member of 
'professional society for the research' organized by KORTERM (1998-2007) in KAIST." The 
petitioner also submits a certificate from the Korea Software Industry Association (KOSA) reflecting 
that he served as an "Auditor and Operation Committee Member" of the KM&EDMS Committee 
from 1997 to 2004. The petitioner's appellate submission includes general information regarding the 
KAIST and the KOSA, but there is no evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission 
requirements) showing that KORTERM's "professional society for research" and KOSA7s 
KM&EDMS Committee require outstanding achievements of their members. 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner holds membership in an organization 
requiring outstanding achievements its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in his field or an allied one. 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 Jield for which classiJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
Page 6 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major 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 qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.2 
The petitioner submitted articles in various Korean language publications, but the accompanying 
English language translations were incomplete and were not certified by the translator as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Further, there is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) 
showing that the articles were in professional or major trade publications or some other form of major 
media. Finally, the authors of the published material were not identified as required by the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. 
In addition to the aforementioned deficiences, in addressing this criterion, the director's decision 
stated: 
It was noted in the RFE that all of the articles initially submitted were from 2001. In 
response to the RFE the petitioner submitted several additional articles fiom 2002, 2003 and 
2004, again with summaries rather than complete translations. However, while reviewing 
these new articles a question has arisen concerning their validity. It would appear that at 
least two of the articles; "[Product Guide] Hurnmingbird['s] EIP" purportedly published on 
August 30, 2002 and "Major Corporations, Banks and Government Change to Enterprise 
Information: Hummingbird EIP 5.0" purportedly published on June 1, 2003, were actually 
cut from the same article an submitted as two separate articles. Both use the same graphics, 
format and paper, and both are clearly not complete versions of the articles they are 
purported to be. This apparent attempt to "bulk-up" the evidence calls into question the 
validity of all the articles submitted. 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless 
the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 
19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition. Id. at 591. On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the director's 
observations regarding the preceding articles, nor does he submit independent and objective 
evidence to overcome the director's findings. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
- 
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 7 
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 specijkation for which classlJication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 
petitioner'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. 5 204.5(h)(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. $ 204.5(h)(2). 
As previously discussed, the petitioner's appellate submission includes a certificate from the KOSA 
reflecting that he served as an "auditor" of the KM&EDMS Committee from 2001 to 2004. The 
petitioner has not established that his service as an auditor for this committee was tantamount to his 
participation as a judge of the work of others in his field or an allied one. Further, there is no evidence 
such as the names of the individuals evaluated by the petitioner, their level of expertise, the specific 
work judged by him, or documentation of his assessments. Without evidence demonstrating the 
petitioner's participation as a judge in a manner consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signlJicance in the$eld. 
The petitioner submitted letters of recommendation praising his expertise and discussing his activity in 
the field. Expertise and activity in the field, however, are not necessarily indicative of scientific or 
business-related contributions of major significance. The record lacks evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner has made original contributions that have significantly influenced or impacted his field. 
, President of Myongji University and a Foreign Associate of the U.S. National 
Academy of Engineering, states: 
[The petitioner] received his Ph.D. in information technology from Hoseo University, where 
I served as President. . . . [The petitioner] was one of the most advanced students at the 
Graduate School of Ventures. He was in fact CEO of the Korean Branch of Hummingbird 
Corporation of Canada over the years. Hummingbird is one of the leading international 
software engineering companies. 
[The petitioner] will bring invaluable professional expertise to the U.S. information industry, 
and his personal professional ties and experience in the information industry would be an 
extremely unique and valuable asset to the IT companies in the U.S. 
His thorough knowledge on the current capabilities and future development strategies of the 
information industry would be most welcome to the U.S. industry. 
Counselor for Science, Embassy of the Republic of Korea, states: 
I have had the privilege of knowing [the petitioner] for over three years, ever since he came 
to the United States as a visiting scholar at the School of Public Policy at George Mason 
University. 
His strong background in engineering and business has led him to serve as the representative 
and president of several high technology venture companies. His contributions and 
determination have placed him in the forefront of establishing IT venture industries in Korea. 
[The petitioner] has created and innovated new ideas and projects including a small-scale 
plant data acquisition system, an electric power plant secondary water early warning A1 
[Artificial Intelligence] system, an electronic reader and a Korean search engine. 
His interest and success in business incubation reflects his personal skills as an engineer and 
an entrepreneur. He is an extraordinary individual who has the knowledge, but also the 
skills, the diligence and the commitment to his work. 
letter indicates that the petitioner has helped implement system solutions for his 
employers, but there is no evidence (such as a patent) demonstrating that he was the original 
inventor of the technologies or that his work constitutes contributions of major significance in the 
field. 
, Senior Economist, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, states: 
On several occasions, [the petitioner] was asked to conduct research on behalf of the Korean 
government. These studies were imperative to help the government modernize technology in 
Korea and improve the growth of the Gross National Product (GNP). 
[The petitioner] has been for a number years a chief executive officer for the high technology 
company, Hummingbird Korea EIP [Enterprise Information Portal]. He has helped shape the 
technology policies that have been beneficial to the Korean nation. His work has helped 
Korea emerge from financial difficulty and obsolete technology to become the fastest 
growing IT technology economy in the world. As a result of the Internet superhighway the 
Korean economy is now one of the most technologically advanced in the world. 
[The petitioner] is preeminent in the field of IT technology in Korea. He was instrumental in 
changing the Korean economy, bringing needed advanced technology ideas to the 
government and the business community. 
With regard to the research studies conducted by the petitioner, while the petitioner's research was 
no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be shown to be original and present some 
benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the government. Any Ph.D. thesis or 
government-sponsored research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must 
offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher 
who conducts studies that add to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution 
of major significance in the field. Further, while the petitioner was responsible for Hummingbird's 
Korean operations, there is no evidence demonstrating that he was the original developer of 
Hummingbird's EIP software that was utilized in the governmental and private business sectors of 
Korea. 
President and Executive Managing Director for iCBM Korea, Inc., states: 
I have known [the petitioner] for more than seven years. I first met him while developing 
financial information for a large business investment. I used the sofiware programs 
developed by [the petitioner's] company Hummingbird EIP for my evaluation of business 
investment issues. The success of my company was greatly contributed to by his insightful 
innovations. 
As the President of Hummingbird and [sic] he has been credited with helping Korea become 
the number one Internet super highway country among the OECD [Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development] nations in the world. He is a talented leader and 
businessman with an understanding of the future of business technology. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner has helped contribute to the success of Hummingbird's Korean 
operations and to a lesser extent the clients utilizing company's software products, but there is no 
evidence demonstrating that his work constitutes original contributions of major significance in the 
field. The petitioner has not established that the success of Hummingbird's internet software was 
primarily attributable to his work or that he invented the company's internet technologies. In 
addressing the incomplete English language translations of articles that discuss the introduction of 
Hummingbird's EIP technology in Korea, the director stated: "While the articles . . . give the 
impression that [the petitioner's] leadership of Hummingbird was beneficial, most attribute the 
company's success to having the right type of software at a time when Korea and its government 
were undergoing modernization." We concur with the director's observation. 
Page 10 
Director, Gangwon Regional Innovation Agency, Korea, states: 
I first met [the petitioner] at KOPEC (Korea Power Engineering Company, Inc.). . . . He was 
then as Manager of Computer Engineering Team responsible for operation of the mainframe 
computer systems for design and engineering of new power plant construction projects. 
Later he joined the Electric Power Research Center (EPRC), the R&D organization of 
KOPEC, serving as a team leader of I&C (Instrument & Control) Research Team under my 
supervision. 
In those days mainframe computers usually required the use of the IBM paper-card reader. 
[The petitioner] and his crew had successfully invented a PC-based card reader to replace the 
old IBM card reading machines. . . . The highlight part was stopping the PC operating 
system temporarily and handling it as just a real time microprocessor system and hardware 
interface. With new PC-based card readers, users could save more than U.S. $10 million in 
using the mainframe computer systems for various engineering calculations including power 
plant simulators. 
His second project with me was to develop an expert system for the secondary water 
chemistry monitoring and diagnosis for power plants. Because of his dedication and 
contribution we were able to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) system for power plants 
for the first time in Korea. It helped power plant operators save a lot of time in monitoring 
and diagnosing the secondary water chemistry systems for two independent power plants at 
the same time. The new A1 technology was later widespread in the construction of many 
new power plants with KEPCO [Korea Electric Power Corporation]. 
His true characteristic can probably be shown in the third project for relocation of power 
plant simulators. Two simulators were very old and out-dated, but still useful for training 
operators with KEPCO. . . . Everything was so well managed until the time of rebooting the 
simulators after relocation. . . . The computer and I&C team under his leadership had to 
spend many days and nights around the clock and to our astonishment were able to correct 
every error in computers and control panels to successfully revitalize the whole system. 
states that the artificial intelligence technology he developed with the petitioner "was later 
widespread in the construction of many new power plants with KEPCO," but the record does not 
include evidence to support his assertion. 
 Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of SofJici at 158. While the petitioner contributed to the success of the aforementioned projects 
undertaken by his employer, there is no evidence demonstrating that his work constitutes original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
President of Rayful System, Korea, states: 
I met [the petitioner] when I was a sales director of "Yess World" in April 1998. 
During [sic] I did a business with him past six years, he raise the company up fiom a 
technology company to top class ISM, EDM and EIP company . . . with his crews and 
distributors. At that time, several famous world class foreign companies compete in same 
market segment. Hummingbird Korea could not be a top ranked company without his 
leadership and his team members' effort, he is good enough to take praise as all round player. 
During his tenure, as a top sales man, technology executive, he involved many projects like 
Kim & Jang Law firm, KCC, Cheil Worldwide, Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology, 
HyunDai, LG Electronics and so on. 
The petitioner has not established that his oversight of projects for Hummingbird's clients was 
tantamount to original contributions of major significance in the field. According to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 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 petitioner has earned the admiration of those offering letters of 
support, the record lacks evidence showing that his work constitutes original contributions of major 
significance in his field consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. For example, the 
record does not indicate the extent to which the petitioner's original work has impacted others in his 
field nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field of information technology has 
significantly changed as a result of technological innovations developed principally by the petitioner. 
In this case, the letters of support submitted by the petitioner's professional associates are not 
sufficient to meet this 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 (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 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 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. Without evidence showing that the 
petitioner's original work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or 
has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that he 
meets this criterion. 
Page 12 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in thejeld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a research paper he co- 
authored entitled "A study of the Perceived Significance of KMS Functions focused on end-users of 
SI." There is no evidence showing that this research paper was published in a professional or major 
trade publication or some other form of major media. We note that authoring scholarly articles is 
inherent to scientific and engineering research. For this reason, we will evaluate a citation history or 
other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's articles when determining their significance to the 
field. For example, numerous independent citations would provide solid evidence that other 
researchers have been influenced by the petitioner's work and are familiar with it. On the other 
hand, few or no citations of an alien's work may indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed 
by his field. In this case, there is no citation evidence showing that articles published by the 
petitioner have attracted a level of interest in his field consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
In light of the above, 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. 
We withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner meets this criterion. At issue for this criterion are 
the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the entity that selected him. In other 
words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's selection to fill the position, in and of 
itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted third-party letters of recommendation and uncertified English language 
translations of Korean articles stating that he served as president in Hummingbird's Korean Office. We 
note that the record does not include a letter of support from Hummingbird's corporate headquarters 
in Canada discussing the nature of the petitioner's duties or the importance of his role to the 
company's operations. Nor is there an organizational chart or other similar evidence showing the 
petitioner's position in relation to that of the other company executives or employees. While the 
third-party letters of recommendation indicate that the petitioner performed admirably for 
Hummingbird's Korean Office, the documentation submitted by him does not establish that his 
position was leading or critical to the company as a whole. There is no evidence demonstrating how 
the petitioner's role differentiated him fiom the other executives who oversaw the company's regional 
offices, let alone Hummingbird's top corporate executives based at its Canadian headquarters. With 
regard to the other managerial positions held by the petitioner throughout his career, there is no 
evidence showing that that these roles were leading or critical or that his past employers had a 
distinguished reputation. The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was 
responsible for his employers' 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. 
Page 13 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
In addressing this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
The petitioner is claiming to have received high remuneration for his services as an 
executive. The petitioner claims to have amassed $4 million in assets but has only submitted 
evidence of roughly $776,000 in the form of banks [sic] statements. The evidence does not 
establish that a significant portion of those asset[s] were gained through his work as an 
executive. The petitioner claims to receive $300,000 in business investments from Korea 
each year but provides no evidence of receiving the payments or that such payments are 
directly based upon his performance of duties as an executive. He also claims to have 
received the equivalent of $1.5 million USD [United States Dollars] in 2002 for his work as 
an executive. The petitioner claims that this salary "was among the highest paid for a 
president of a Korean corporation that year'' but provides no documentary evidence to show 
what other similarly employed presidents were paid and that his was high relative to those 
others. Finally, as evidence of the salary paid the petitioner, he has submitted a tax record 
which indicates a total annual payment for 2002 of 126,844,972.~ Presumably, these 
payments were in South Korea Won (KRW). The petitioner has provided no information 
concerning how he converted his salary into USD; however, a check of two separate 
currency converters available on the internet shows that on December 21, 2002, the above 
figure in KRW would be worth roughly $106,962 USD - significantly less than the amount 
the petitioner claims to have been paid. 
It is here noted that - in reference to both the currency conversion issues as well as the 
apparent attempt to submit the same article twice and represent it as two different articles - 
doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. 
Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988). 
We concur with the director's findings. On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the director's 
observations regarding his remuneration, nor does he submit independent and objective evidence to 
overcome the director's findings. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the 
petitioner to submit evidence of a high salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers 
no basis for comparison showing that his salary was significantly high in relation to others in hs field. 
In light of the above, 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 receipt 
of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$204.5(h)(3). Further, the record does not include evidence showing that the petitioner's national or 
3 
 The certificate of income tax payment for 2002 submitted by the petitioner includes a conversion to U.S. currency 
reflecting an amount of $1,489,977. 
Page 14 
international acclaim as business executive or research engineer has been sustained. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, 
there is no evidence of achievements and recognition consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the petitioner's field subsequent to his arrival in the United 
States in 2003. 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. 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(2). 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 4 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
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 burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. !ij 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.