dismissed EB-1A Case: International Business Law

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Admini strative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: MAR 2 6 2014 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: 
APPLICATION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b )(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A). 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administr ative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-preced ent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http: // www.uscis.gov/ fOJ~ms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
;rei* 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administr ative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business, specifically as an 
international business lawyer, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The director determined the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstr ate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director, in adjudicating the petition , demonstrated inattention to the 
facts of this case resulting in error. Furthermore, counsel asserts that the petitioner established all 
regulatory and statutory requirements as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability.-- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business , or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101
51 
Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the AAO ' s decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A Standard of Review 
Counsel for the petitioner asserts that the director's decision includes a factual error in the findings 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and the error reflects a lack of attention to the facts of the pending petition. 
Counsel thereby requests that a new adjudicator or supervisor conduct an entirely new and independent 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
review of the petition. The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 
381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Taco Especial v. Napolitano, 696 F.Supp.2d 873, 879 (E.D. Mich. 
2010). Accordingly, the appeal will be adjudicated based on the full record of proceedings, including 
all submitted documentary evidence. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria3 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The director determined that the petitioner did not submit evidence establishing the requirements of this 
criterion. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner presented evidence of seven nationally or 
internationally recognized awards but that the director only discussed three of the awards in the denial 
decision. The petitioner submitted as evidence: 
(1) An internship for a District Court in China; 
(2) Selection to 
(3, 
(4, ~ -
(5) Participation as a competitor in the 
(6) The petitioner's role with the 
(7) Selection to Australia's . _ ~-----------------__j 
and 
Counsel, in the initial submission of evidence and on appeal, focuses on the selectivity of the listed 
scholarships, internships and other activities. However, participation in a competition, a program 
(either as a participant or as an organizer), a professional school, an internship or a training program, 
does not constitute a prize or an award, regardless of the level of selectivity involved. Admission into 
an academic program, competitions associated with an academic program, internships, and training 
programs are all part of the training process toward a future field of endeavor. Much of the submitted 
evidence under this criterion reflects the petitioner's participation in various prestigious activities or 
programs, but such participation cannot be recognized as prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. See Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1345 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (noting that Congress 
entrusted the decision of defining and classifying awards to the administrative process). 
_ is the only distinction that does not consist of the petitioner's 
participation in a program or training activity. However, academic scholarships and student awards are 
not prizes or awards in the petitioner 's field of endeavor because academic study is training for a future 
field of endeavor, rather than a current field of endeavor. 
explains that the scholarship is based on academic accomplishments, 
publications, and school and community activities. As such, the scholarship does not recognize 
excellence in the field. 
3 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The record also does not establish that the field nationally or internationally recognizes any of the items 
submitted as prizes or awards for excellence in the field. On appeal, counsel maintains that the support 
letter from _ , asserts that the internship with 
the District Court in China and the , o ~ were nationally 
recognized awards. However, - letter, in relevant part, states that "[the] Court ... is 
regarded as the most prestigious District Court in China." The prestige of the Court where the petitioner 
did her internship does not demonstrate that the internship is a nationally recognized prize. In addition, 
Professor letter, in referencing the training program notes that it was nationwide and was 
"organized and sponsored by the Chinese Ministry of Education." That the scope of selection for the 
participants was nationwide and that a government agency sponsored the program does not amount to 
national recognition of the internship as an award for excellence in the field. Counsel further asserts on 
appeal that the support letter from __ _ _ 
Association, explicitly documents the international recognition of the letter reflects 
that according to the Australian Consulate, the sponsoring organization of the program, the is a 
"select and unique group of young leaders from around the world." Again, the global scope of the 
selection of leaders to participate in the program is not equivalent to international recognition of the 
program as an award for excellence in the field. 
For all of the foregoing reasons, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The director determined in his decision that the petitioner did not meet the requirements for eligibility 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Counsel asserts on appeal that the petitioner submitted sufficient 
evidence to meet this criterion. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying every element of this 
criterion to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted the following evidence for consideration under this criterion: 
(1) 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
(5) 
Membership in the Wisconsin Bar; 
Membership in the New York Bar; 
Participation in the 2008 national convention for the 
Association; 
Membership in 
Selection as a 
\ 
md 
Membership into state bars generally requires, as the petitioner's counsel notes, a degree in the field and 
passage of a bar examination. Such requirements are the minimal qualifications for allowing an 
attorney to practice law in a particular state and minimal professional requirements do not rise to the 
level of outstanding achievements. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's admission into the 
Wisconsin Bar is an outstanding achievement based on the competitiveness and prestige of the 
educational institution where she received her degree. There is nothing in the record to indicate that 
admission into the Wisconsin bar requires that a member receive a degree from a competitive or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
prestigiOus educational institution or that attendance at such an institution is in and of itself an 
outstanding achievement. Also, the members of the law faculty of the are not 
the individuals who judge admittance into the Wisconsin Bar. Therefore, any recognition of that 
institution's faculty as being experts in the field has no bearing on whether the petitioner demonstrated 
that membership to the Wisconsin Bar requires judging by recognized experts. Similarly, the record 
does not establish that being a member of the New York bar requires outstanding achievements beyond 
the minimal qualifications , to practice as a lawyer in New York. Counsel on appeal asserts that the low 
passage rate for that state's bar examination and an even lower passage rate for foreign educated 
lawyers are sufficient to demonstrate that admission to the bar is an outstanding achievement. First, 
counsel relies on the February pass rates for all takers of the examination and foreign educated 
applicants. The pass rates for first-time takers in July, however, are much higher, 79 percent for those 
taking the New York Bar examination for the first time in July 2009. Regardless, the plain language of 
the regulation does not contemplate individual hardships and circumstances in defining outstanding 
achievements. It remains that obtaining the credentials necessary to practice in one's field, even if 
competitive, is not an outstanding achievement in that field. Therefore, the two memberships in the 
state bars do not meet this criterion. 
Regarding the 2008 national convention for the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, 
counsel submits evidence of the petitioner's one time.participation in this event, not the membership in 
the bar association, for consideration under the criterion. Counsel asserts that participation in this event 
constitutes as an outstanding achievement in light of the competitive selection process to participate. 
Nonetheless, regardless of the level of selectivity of the process, a one-time event is not equivalent to an 
association and participation in such an event does not equate to membership. Similarly, the evidence 
in the record indicates that the is a program and not an association. Moreover, there is 
insufficient evidence showing that membership to the l requires outstanding achievements. 
While the Australian Consulate describes the as "a select and unique group of young leaders 
from the world," there is insufficient evidence documenting a requirement of outstanding achievements. 
Furthermore, USCIS need not rely on an entity's own vague claims of prestige. Cf Braga v. Poulos, 
No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C.D. CA July 6, 2007) ajf'd 2009 WL 604888 (91h Cir. 2009) (finding that 
USCIS need not rely on the promotional material of a publisher). 
Finally, the record contains evidence showing that the selected 
the petitioner as one of the organization's Vice Presidents for her achievements. First, a roe for an 
association is not a membership in an association. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) sets 
forth a separate criterion pertaining to leading or critical roles. Second, notwithstanding the petitioner's 
individual selection process as an officer, the documentary evidence does not indicate that the 
requires outstanding achievements of its members. Additionally, the 
record contains no evidence that there is separate category of membership for officers of the 
organization or a requirement that to be an officer of the association, a member must demonstrate 
outstanding achievements. 
Accordingly, the record supports the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not established that she 
meets the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
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 classification is sought. Such evidence shall 
include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The director determined that the petitioner's evidence of an article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle did not 
satisfy the requirements of 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The record includes documentary evidence 
attesting that the Brooklyn Daily Eagle's circulation consists of 10,000 readers per day for the print 
edition and approximately 250,000 readers per month for the on-line edition. The director properly 
concluded that such numbers are consistent with a local publication and, as such, the Brooklyn Daily 
Eagle does not qualify as major media pursuant to the regulation. Accordingly, the director properly 
determined that the petitioner did not satisfy the regulatory requirements and did not meet 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 allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The director determined in his decision that the petitioner met the criterion pursuant to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). As noted by the counsel on appeal, however, the petitioner never claimed to meet this 
criterion and the record of proceedings does not include documentary evidence in support of the 
petitioner's eligibility under this criterion. Instead, the director referenced evidence pertaining to a 
different field that does not appear in the record.4 Accordingly, the AAO withdraws the director's 
determination in this regard. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of majorsignificance in the field. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v ). 
The director determined that the evidence of record is insufficient to meet this criterion. On appeal, 
counsel asserts that the director erred in focusing on whether the petitioner's contributions made an 
impact on the overall field. Counsel asserts that such a focus is more appropriate to an analysis relating 
to a petition for a scientist and because the petitioner is a practicing lawyer, that USCIS should assess 
her contributions with regard to the impact to individual clients. Regardless of the field, the plain 
language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact 
beyond one's employer and clients or customers. See Visinscaia v. Beers, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 
WL 6571822 , at *6, 8 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met 
this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
More specifically, counsel asserts that the director did not consider all six letters of support found in the 
record from the following individuals attesting to the petitioner's contributions: (1) 
4 
The remainder of the director 's decision discusses the petitioner's evidence in depth; thus, this single inadvertent 
reference to evidence in a different field is not indicative of the director's failure to properly review the record. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The letters of support from praise the 
petitioner's work and potential. However, they all describe the petitioner's excellence as a student or a 
student intern during her educational and training process to become an international business lawyer. 
For exampl writes: 
I asked her to help me with several of my research projects. One of them was a research 
project for my local province (which is analogous to a state in the U.S.) about juvenile 
justice system reform. The research and analysis she did was very advanced and brand 
new in China . . . . The final result of the project is a book1 
Although the petitioner assisted with the research for Professor book as a student researcher, she 
did not document that she is a credited co-author of the book. As such, the petitioner has not 
documented that her role on the book significantly contributed to the impact of the book in the field. 
Although Professor praises the quality of the petitioner's research and compliments her for the work 
she did as a judicial intern, Professor does not explain how this research rises to the level of 
significant contributions in the field at large. Much of the praise in the letters compares the petitioner to 
her student or intern peers, and not as a practitioner in the field of endeavor. Finally, the petitioner has 
not documented the impact of this juvenile justice book on her area of expertise, business law. 
Similarly, letters praise the petitioner's work as being 
of outstanding quality, but there is nothing in the letters to suggest that the wider field beyond her 
immediate supervisors took note of her work as contributions in the field. 
With regard to the letter from Director , she notes that the petitioner has had a positive impact on her 
organization, the and praises the petitioner's organizational 
skills that positively influenced several events and her relational skills. Director writes, "She is an 
extraordinarily talented lawyer, superbly versed in the laws, languages, and culture of both China and 
the United States. To succeed as an international business lawyer, though, those talents and skills alone 
are not enough. A lawyer must also be able to build vibrant and lasting professional relationships." The 
skills that Director discusses relate to the petitioner's effectiveness and potential for success in the 
field, but do not constitute contributions in the field at large. 
The letter from her current employer observes that "[the petitioner's] work has greatly improved our 
firm's work product, and her effect on the field will grow substantially the longer she practices ." The 
potential for future influence and the current positive impact on the work of her current employer are 
insufficient to meet the plain language requirements for the criterion for original contributions in the 
field. 
The above letters are all from the petitioner ' s collaborators and immediate circle of colleagues . 
While such letters are important in providing details about the petitioner's role in various projects, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
they cannot by themselves establish the impact of the petitioner's contributions beyond her 
immediate circle of colleagues. Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically 
identify contributions or provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field 
are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 
(9th Cir. 2010).5 The petitioner 's letters generally provide examples of how the petitioner 's 
contributions influenced the specific organization they represent, but do not provide examples of 
contributions that influenced the field. 
Finally, counsel requests on appeal that USCIS consider the petitioner's article, "A Study of Forgery 
and Its Serious Issues" as a significant contribution in the field. Counsel asserts that the article is 
included in numerous academic databases and that one third-party article has relied upon the 
petitioner's article. The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published 
articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the regulation views contributions as a separate 
evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles.6 While documentation of an extensive citation record 
or comparable evidence of reliance in the field would be probative evidence relating to this criterion, 
evidence of reliance by one subsequent article and the mere inclusion in databases is insufficient to 
demonstrate that the article is an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
Thus, the petitioner has not established eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The record contains evidence of 
one published article the petitioner authored, which counsel admits on appeal. Nonetheless , counsel 
asserts that based on its potential impact, this one article satisfies the regulatory requirement. USCIS 
may not utilize novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5. See. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1221, citing Love Korean Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 758 
(9th Cir.2008). The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires, irrespective 
of potential impact, evidence of "scholarly articles" in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) use the' plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.P.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary . When 
a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it 
states at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." 
Thus, the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts 
5 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting 
to [the alien's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 
596 F.3d at 1122. 
6 Publication and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence 
that they were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 
596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in 
finding that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a 
regulation. 7 
Accordingly, because the record does not include evidence of multiple scholarly articles, the director 
did not err in concluding that the petitioner did not establish her eligibility pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The director concluded that the petitioner met the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) based 
upon the record of proceeding, including the petitioner's role as Vice President of the Chinese Business 
Lawyers Association. The evidence of record supports the director's conclusion that the petitioner 
meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to submit sufficient relevant, probative evidence to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination. 8 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
7 See Maramjaya v. USCJS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com 
Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
8 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 P.3d 143, 145 
(3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 
103(a)(1) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. The petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 lo-&-N~ Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 
1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions).