dismissed EB-1A Case: International Development

U.S. Department of Iiomeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
idn?ti@ing data deleted to 
 u.S. Citizenship 
p?evzn; c i z;i:?;r u:xvarranted 
 and Immigration 
invasion ofper:cnal privacy 
PUBLIC cor Y 
FILE: 
 LIN 06 258 5223 1 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: , 
 MAR 1 2 2009 
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. 5 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. 9 103.5 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). 
whn F. Grisskd, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 06 258 5223 1 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the 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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. 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. The director also determined the petitioner had not submitted clear evidence that he would 
continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
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) and that he will "continue to work in the area of his extraordinary ability." 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
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. 8 204.5(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. 
LINO625852231 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on September 7, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in international development issues such as environmental protection and 
poverty alleviation. The petitioner holds a Master's degree in International Public Policy from Johns 
Hopkins University (2004). In October 2004, the petitioner was appointed as the Representative of 
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Office in Beijing. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
The petitioner began his career in the Chinese Ministry of Water Resources, and has since 
held positions at the World Bank and the United Nations. Over the course of his career, [the 
petitioner] has distinguished himself as one of the elite few at the top of the field of 
environmental protection and poverty alleviation. He . . . has served most recently as the 
United Nations Environment Programme Representative in Beijing, China, and as a key 
advisor at the World Bank. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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. 
8 204.5(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. 
The petitioner initially claimed receipt of a "World Bank President's Award for Excellence" in 2004 
for his work on the Loess Plateau Watershed Rehabilitation Project. The petitioner submitted an 
abstract for a World Bank "Working Paper" entitled "the Loess Plateau Watershed Rehabilitation 
Project," but the paper does not identify the petitioner as a recipient of the aforementioned award, 
nor does it state that the success of the project was primarily attributable to him. The petitioner also 
submitted an article entitled "The secret of success of the World Bank Project: Focus on the Whole 
Progress." The English language translation accompanying this article was not certified by the 
translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
 The article describes the 
mesentation ceremonv for the World Bank President's Award for Excellence in 2004 at the World 
Bank headquarters inwashin on, D.C. This article identifies the recipients as ', the 
project manager," the director of Department of Water Resource in the Ministry of 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
- 
 LIN 06 258 5223 1 
Page 4 
Water Resource," and " of Yellow River Water Resource Committee." There is 
no evidence from the World Bank indicating that the petitioner received a "World Bank President's 
Award for Excellence" in 2004 or that the award focused primarily on his work. 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. Comm. 1972)). A petition must be filed with 
any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 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). 
Further, it has not been established that the aforementioned award reflects national or international 
recognition for excellence in the field rather than institutional recognition for World Bank project 
participants. 
The petitioner claims that he is a winner of the "2005 Chinese Celebrities Environment Protection 
Public Praises Contest." The petitioner submitted material entitled "2005 Chinese Celebrities 
Environment Protection Public Praises List," but the English language translation accompanying the 
material was not certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). 
Further, the source of the document was not identified and several pages of the document were 
~mitted.~ The unreliable documentation submitted by the petitioner indicates that scores of 
individuals were similarly honored on the public praise list. The petitioner has not established that 
his selection for this extensive list is consistent with being in "that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). Further, the plain language of 
the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of the petitioner's receipt of 
"nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards." There is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner received a prize or award in this contest, or that his selection commanded national or 
international recognition. On appeal, the petitioner resubmits the same pages of unreliable and 
incomplete material. Counsel asserts that the contest organizers "announce the winners on media 
outlets," but the specific media outlets are not identified and there is no evidence of the 
announcements aside from the deficient listing previously submitted. 
 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 submitted evidence showing that he was among 250 "student delegates" selected to 
attend the Academy of Achievement's 2004 annual International Summit in Chicago, Illinois. In 
response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an August 24, 2007 letter 
from , Director of Student Activities, Academy of Achievement, Washington, D.C., 
stating: 
This is an all-expense paid weekend attended by 250 of the world's most promising young 
scholars and graduate students from 40 countries as well as eminent leaders from the arts, 
sciences, business, and public service. 
2 
 The petitioner's submission includes only pages 88, 92, and 95. 
LIN0625852231 
Page 5 
Each year, the 250 students include Rhodes, Marshall, Truman, and Gates-Cambridge 
Scholars; students from the Air Force, Navy and Army service academies; medical students 
from Harvard, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins; political science students from Paris, London, 
Moscow and the U.S.; and law and business students from Chicago, Harvard, MIT, and 
Princeton. [The petitioner] was nominated by, to represent the Paul H. 
Nitze School for Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, at the Summit. 
The petitioner has not established that his selection by a faculty member of his alma mater to attend 
this event constitutes his receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in his field. We cannot ignore that the petitioner attended as one of the 250 "promising 
young scholars and graduate students" rather than as one of the "eminent leaders from the arts, 
sciences, business, and public service." The petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 
intended for aliens already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing 
toward the top at some unspecified future time. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The preceding student 
honor offers no meaningful comparison between the petitioner and experienced professionals in the 
field who have long since completed their graduate studies. Further, the petitioner's nomination by a 
faculty member at the for Advanced International Studies reflects institutional 
recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, counsel states that the "Chinese Government 
granted [the petitioner] the prestigious award of 'Peace Emissary' as part of a week-long annual 
event sponsored by the United Nations called 'International Week of Science and Peace."' In 
support of this statement, the petitioner submitted an undated plaque stating: "UN 
INTERNATIONAL WEEK OF SCIENCE AND PEACE, PEACE MESSENGER." The petitioner 
also submitted a photograph of him holding the plaque at a ceremony. This plaque does not bear the 
petitioner's name and there is no supporting evidence showing that selection as a "Peace Messenger" 
is tantamount to receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in 
the field. Further, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner had received this award as of the 
petition's filing date. 
 A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
 8 C.F.R. 
$5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). On appeal, 
counsel discusses the criteria for selection as a Peace Messenger, but the record lacks evidence from 
the awarding governmental entity to support his assertions. As discussed, the unsupported assertions 
of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533, 534 n.2; Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 1, 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 503, 506. 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included documentation showing that 
he received a Vernadski Award from the International Academy of Ecology and Life Protection 
Sciences (IAELPS) dated July 27, 2006. This documentation was not accompanied by a certified 
English language translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). The petitioner 
also submitted a document entitled "Brief Introduction on International Academy of Ecology and 
Life Protection Sciences Associated with the Department of Public Information of the United 
Nations." The source of this document was not identified. The document lists six "Tasks of 
IAELPS." Item 6 states: 
LIN 06 258 5223 1 
Page 6 
Confer title of honor upon governmental organs, social organizations, enterprise groups and 
excellent government leaders, scientists, social activists entrepreneurs who have made 
outstanding contributions towards promoting hendly exchanges and maintaining ecology 
and life security; set up prizes and bonus such as "Vernadski International Medal Grade One 
to Three" . . . . 
The record does not indicate the grade level of the petitioner's Vernadski award or specify its 
selection criteria. Further, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's award 
commanded a significant level of recognition beyond the IAELPS. The plain language of the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be 
nationally or internationally recognized and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. 
For example, there is no evidence demonstrating that recipients of the award were announced in 
major media or in some other manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at 
the very top of his field. 
In this case, the evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that the preceding honors 
constitute nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzJication 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, 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 an August 11, 2006 letter inviting him to "take the position as the vice 
president of China International Institution of Multinational Corporation in order to further advance 
the relationships and cooperation between China and the United Nation [sic], international and non- 
government organizations." The letter concludes by stating: "[Wle need your supports to make 
tributes to the economic development in China and World. It is hereby to invite you." This 
invitation letter does not establish that the petitioner actually holds membership in the organization 
or the date of his admission. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner 
submitted information from the China International Institute of Multinational Corporations internet 
site stating: "Founded on January 1, 1993, China International Institute of Multinational 
Corporations (CIIMC) is a non-governmental organization directly supervised by the Ministry of 
Commerce and is specially engaged in the work of multinational corporations in China." The 
petitioner also submitted a copy of the CIIMC's constitution. Article 21 of the constitution states: 
LIN 06 258 52231 
Page 7 
The candidates conforming to the qualifications of chief vice-president and executive vice- 
presidents (legal representative) and vice-presidents shall be elected through vote and 
reported to the Ministry of Civil Affairs for record. Chief vice-president, executive vice- 
president and vice-presidents shall meet the following qualifications: 
1. They should adhere to the Party's line, principles and policies, and be of good political 
quality; 
2. They should have rather great influence and enjoy good reputation both at home and 
abroad; 
3. They should have assumed or have been assuming leading positions at above directorial 
levels; 
4. They enjoy good health, and can go in for normal work; 
5. They have no criminal record; 
6. They have full civil behavior ability; 
7. The highest age for assuming the position is no more than 70. 
We cannot conclude that the preceding requirements are tantamount to outstanding achievements. 
Further, there is no evidence showing that the voters who elect individuals for the preceding 
positions are recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields as required by 
the plain language of 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing the 
petitioner's date of appointment as vice-president of the CIIMC (such as documentation showing his 
election was "reported to the Ministry of Civil Affairs"). 
The petitioner submitted documentation showing that he is a member of the board of directors of 
China Green Pictorial, that he was appointed as a Research Fellow at the Economic Development 
Research Center of Wuhan University, that he was conferred the title of "Distinguished Visiting 
Professor of Business" by the Shanghai Institute of Foreign Trade, and that he was appointed as an 
advisor to the Guangrou County local government. There is no evidence (such as bylaws or official 
admission standards) demonstrating the specific membership requirements for these organizations. 
In this case, the petitioner has not established that he holds membership in associations that require 
outstanding achievements of their 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 thejeld for which classzfication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 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 
LIN 06 258 52231 
Page 8 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication or from a 
publication printed in a language that the vast majority of the country's population cannot comprehend. 
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.3 
The petitioner submitted an October 27, 2005 article about him in China Daily. In response to the 
director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted information printed from China Daily's 
internet site stating: "China Daily, established in 198 1, is the only national English-language 
newspaper in China. The average daily circulation is more than 200,000, one-third of which is 
abroad in more than 150 countries and regions." The self-sewing nature of the information from 
China Daily's internet site is not sufficient to demonstrate that the newspaper qualifies as a form of 
"major" media in China or in any other country. Further, media coverage in a publication read by 
only an extremely small segment of a country's total population is not evidence of national acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted a June 5, 2005 interview of him in and a December 30, 2005 
interview of him i There is no evidence (such as independent circulation 
statistics) showing - that qualifies as a form of major media. While 1 
qualifies as a form of major media, the record does not reflect the sectional placement of the 
petitioner's article in the publication. Further, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires 
that the published material be "about the alien." The primary subject of the preceding interviews was 
the UNEP and its initiatives rather than the petitioner and his individual achievements. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedjeld of speczjcation for which classification is 
sought. 
The petitioner submitted a July 2006 "Invitation Letter" requesting that he chair the judging panel at 
the 1" Annual International Environment Protection Documentary Exhibition Festival from 
September 1 - 6, 2006. The letter concludes by stating: "It is hereby to invite you to act as member 
of the judge panel as well as the chairman of the judge panel. . . . Your attendance is highly 
appreciated."4   he petitioner also submitted an October 10, 2005 letter entitled "Invitation on 
Acting as the Judge of Green China Annual Personage Election." This invitation letter requests that 
the petitioner complete an attached registration acknowledgment which was left blank. The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification." The documentation submitted by the 
petitioner for this regulatory criterion does not establish his actual participation as a judge for either 
3 
 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. 
The petitioner's Form 1-140 petition was signed by him on September I, 2006 and mailed on September 2, 2006. Thus, 
his initial evidence does not establish his participation or attendance at this six-day event. 
LIN0625852231 
Page 9 
of the preceding events. An invitation does not constitute evidence of "participation." Without 
evidence showing that the petitioner participated in the preceding events in a manner consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level of his field, we cannot conclude that 
he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner initially submitted six recommendation letters in support of his petition. These letters 
describe the petitioner's academic qualifications, professional experience, activities in the field, and 
the general importance of his work, but they fail to establish that specific achievements attributable 
to him constitute original contributions of major significance in environmental protection and 
poverty alleviation. 
With his professional experience as the Advisor to the Executive Director of the World Bank, 
[the petitioner] distinguishes himself in the international arena through his strong advocacy 
for equality, freedom, rights for individuals who face poverty and oppression, and the spread 
of democratic values throughout the world. 
Adjunct Faculty, Johns Hopkins School for Advanced 
International Studies (SAIS), states: 
[The petitioner] is by far the most outstanding international student who has studied with me 
at SAIS, and this is a high distinction, given the superb caliber of the SAIS student body. He 
is also an outstanding citizen of the world, helping to bridge understanding between the 
developed and developing world, one of the most urgently needed talents our world needs. 
Service, states: 
During 2004, [the petitioner] was my student in a class on international business strategy at 
the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies in Washington, 
D.C. 
[The petitioner] brings a rare knowledge of his native country, The People's Republic of 
Chin, and its governmental and other institutions to the needs of a variety of U.S. parties - 
businesses industry groups, financial institutions, and consultants. 
-1 a Fellow at the Public Relations Society of America who also holds 
Accreditation in Public Relations designation, states: 
LIN 06 258 5223 1 
Page 10 
It was my pleasure to meet [the petitioner] several years ago on the occasion of an 
International Symposium at the World Bank. He is truly and impressive young man whose 
unique experience and knowledge ensures him the ability to be a significant contributor to 
the United States economy as well as our country's international presence. 
His extensive managerial experience and demonstrated leadership capacity have made him a 
strong and effective advocate for equality and individual freedom, empowering the poor and 
vulnerable, and enhancing the voice of democracy in the international arena. 
founder of ANARl Inc., states that the petitioner was among the "most capable 
advisors" he encountered at the World Bank. Mr. - further states: 
 "[The petitioner's] 
experience and knowledge of the developing world (inclusively Africa, Middle East, and Asia), 
position him well to cultivate understanding between North and South, rich and poor; which should 
prove valuable to the betterment of U.S.-international relations." 
Senior Pastor, Cherrydale Baptist Church, Arlington, Virginia, states that the 
petitioner "has a brilliant mind and an outstanding education." 
The preceding the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner do not specify exactly what 
his original contributions in environmental protection and poverty alleviation have been, nor do they 
provide a substantive explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major significance 
in his field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an August 24, 2007 letter 
of support from 
 Vice President for Asia Pacific, Rare, stating: 
I have known and worked with [the petitioner] for three years. We were peers and colleagues 
at the United Nations (UN) and collaborated closely to initiate several important initiatives to 
promote the sustainable development of China and conserve the global environment. 
[The petitioner] worked with me and took the lead in developing several large and complex 
projects including the following: 
1) China Biodiversity Partnership Framework Project. 
This is a $20 million multi-agency project. It is the first project of its kind in China to be 
financed by Global Environment Facility (GEF), primarily funded from the United 
States, implemented by UN Development Program, UN Environment Program, and the 
World Bank. [The petitioner] helped to design the project and also sat on the Steering 
Committee among 10 international experts, guiding the project design, planning and 
implementation, exploring innovative ways to protect world-endangered species and 
- 
 LIN 06 258 5223 1 
Page 11 
globally significant ecosystems. [The petitioner] played the key roles of helping to 
conceive the project priorities, facilitating discussion among the UN agencies and other 
partners, an [sic] negotiating with the various Chinese government ministries. I am quite 
sure that without the leadership of [the petitioner] the project would not have been 
possible. This project will be the umbrella framework for foreign assistance to China to 
conserve that country's biodiversity. . . . 
2) Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Headwaters of the Huaihe 
River Basin. 
This is a $4 million project also to be financed by the Global Environment Facility, for 
which the United States Government is the largest supporter. [The petitioner] designed 
this project and proposed to implement an innovative model of ecosystem conservation to 
balance ecosystem conservation and livelihood development. He also successfully 
completed the complex negotiations with the various local and national government 
agencies involved for the project to be able to move forward. In short, he is fully 
responsible for the success of this initiative. 
This project will help the Chinese government, using US-foreign aid, to reduce these 
dangers and conserve biodiversity, benefiting not only China but the world. 
3) Linking tourism to biodiversity conservation in the Taishan Mountain Landscape. 
This is a $4 million project to demonstrate how mass tourism in China can be compatible 
with conservation of the environment. . . . [The petitioner] led the effort to develop eco- 
friendly tourism, and design this project into a world model. He is single-handedly 
responsible for this effort. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has performed admirably as 
the UNEP's Representative in Beijing for the above ongoing projects, there is no supporting 
evidence showing the successful completion of these projects and their resulting ecological and 
environmental benefits. Nor is there supporting evidence showing that the work specifically 
attributable to the petitioner has had major significance in the field. For example, the record does 
not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other United Nations programs, nor does it 
show that the field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence also included a copy of the "United 
Nations Development Assistance Framework for the People's Republic of China (2006-2010)" 
planning document. The petitioner's signature appears with those of twenty others who helped 
prepare the document. This planning document outlines future development assistance initiatives for 
the United Nations in China. There is no evidence showing that the strategies developed by the 
petitioner have achieved significant success or that they are otherwise viewed throughout his field as 
LIN 06 258 5223 1 
Page 12 
original contributions of major significance. Nevertheless, the petitioner's preparation of a United 
Nations report is far more relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct 
from one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and original 
contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. 
If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, 
the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. We will further 
address the petitioner's authorship and the attention it has garnered under the next criterion. 
In this case, the letters of support are all from those who have instructed or worked with the 
petitioner. While such letters are important in providing details about the petitioner's role in various 
projects, they cannot by themselves establish that he has made original contributions of major 
significance in his field. 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 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. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in thejkld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of material for World Bank and United Nations 
reports and for various conferences and forums. There is no evidence showing that such works 
constitute "scholarly articles in the field" or that they were published in professional or major trade 
publications or some other form of major media. The director concluded that there was no evidence 
showing that the material authored by the petitioner has significantly impacted his field or has 
otherwise garnered him recognition consistent with national or international acclaim. Counsel does 
not challenge this conclusion on appeal. Upon review, we find the director properly considered the 
evidence submitted, thoroughly addressed counsel's arguments and appropriately addressed the 
evidence and arguments in his decision. Accordingly, we concur with the director's finding that the 
petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
LIN0625852231 
Page 13 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he served as the Representative of the UNEP Office 
in Beijing and as an Advisor to the Chinese Executive Director, World Bank Board of Directors. On 
appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner "performed in a leading and critical role for two 
internationally recognized organizations, the United Nations and the World Bank." At issue for this 
criterion is the position the petitioner was selected to fill. 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. We cannot ignore that the record lacks letters of support from 
the top executive leadership at these organizations discussing the importance of the petitioner's role. 
With regard to the petitioner's role for the United Nations, the petitioner submitted a July 22, 2004 
letter from the Human Resources Management Service offering him "a one year Intermediate-term 
appointment as UNEPIGEF Coordinator for China." The petitioner has not established that this term 
appointment was indicative of a leading or critical role for the United Nations. 
Regarding the petitioner's role as an Advisor to the Chinese Executive Director at the World Bank, 
the petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence included an August 28, 2007 letter 
from stating: 
In this position, [the petitioner] served as staff of the Board of Directors of the largest and 
most influential development bank in the world, and was a critical element of making policy 
- both on behalf of his government and for the World Bank. . . . As Advisor to the Chinese 
Executive Director, [the petitioner] had the lead in environment and sustainable 
development, among other issues. 
According to her resume, 
 the World Bank in the late 1970s as a 
"Research/Evaluation Consultant." As did not work with or supervise the 
petitioner at the World Bank, we cannot assign significant weight to her observations. With regard 
to the petitioner's positions for the World Bank and the United Nations, the record does not establish 
that his roles were leading or critical to the organizations. There is no evidence demonstrating how 
the petitioner's role differentiated him from the other staff at the World Bank and the United Nations, 
let alone their more senior leadership (such as directors). 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. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in thefield. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a July 22, 2004 letter from 
the Human Resources Management Service reflecting that he was offered a base salary of $1 13,168 
to work for the UNEP. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to 
submit evidence showing that he has commanded a high salary "in relation to others in the field." 
' LIN 06 258 52231 
Page 14 
The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that his compensation was significantly high in 
relation to others in his field. 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 receipt 
of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 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. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The director also found that the petitioner had not submitted clear evidence that he would continue to 
work in his area of expertise in the United States. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires 
"clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of 
expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of 
prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on 
how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the United States." The petitioner initially 
submitted a statement addressing his career plans. In response to the director's request for evidence, 
the petitioner submitted an August 1, 2007 from indicating that Rare seeks his consultancy 
services and a March 14,2007 letter from - Chairman of Eco Expo, expressing interest 
in employing the petitioner. With regard to the petitioner's prospective employment with Eco Expo, 
that company is in forfeit status and is not authorized to conduct bu~iness.~ Accordingly, while it 
now appears that the petitioner could not work for Eco Expo, the other evidence is sufficient to 
establish that he intends to continue working in his area of expertise in the United States. Therefore, 
we withdraw the director's finding on this issue. 
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 wihn 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 the 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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
See httu:lkevler.ss.ca.~o~/~omdatai~how~ll~ist?~ue&om~umbe~~ and h~://www.sos.ca.gov/ 
business/corp/corp help.htn1, accessed on March 9,2009, copies incorporated into the record of proceeding.