dismissed EB-1A Case: International Travel Logistics And Management

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Department of HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
2()MassachusettsAve., N.W., Ms 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and ImmigratiOn
Services
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICECENTER FILE:
JUL112012
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto Section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice that originally decidedyour case. Pleasebe advisedthat
any further inquiry that you might haveconcerningyour casemust be madeto that office.
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional
information that you wish to haveconsidered,you may file a motion to reconsideror a motion to reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a feeof $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiledwithin
30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscas.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationasan"alienof extraordinaryability" in business,pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A).Counsel'sinitialbrief
indicatedthatthepetitioner'sextraordinaryability is in the"field of InternationalTravelLogisticsand
Management,"andin to theU.S." Thedirectordeterminedthe
petitionerhadnot establishedthesustainednationalor internationalacclaimnecessaryto qualify for
classificationasanalienof extraordinaryability.
Congressseta veryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryabilityby requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's "sustainednationalor internationalacclaim" and present
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act and
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a
major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,theregulationoutlines
tencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). Thepetitionermust
submitqualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof evidenceto establish
thebasiceligibilityrequirements.
Thepetitioner'sprioritydateestablishedby thepetitionfiling dateis March10,2011. On March24,
2011, the director served the petitioner with a requestfor evidence(RFE). After receiving the
petitioner'sresponseto the RFE,the directorissuedher decisionon May 18,2011. On appeal,the
petitionersubmitsa brief with no newdocumentaryevidence.For the reasonsdiscussedbelow,the
AAO upholdsthedirector'sultimatedeterminationthatthepetitionerhasnot establishedhereligibility
for theclassificationsought.
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,inpertinentpart,that:
(1) Priorityworkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Aliens with extraordinaryability. -- An alienis describedin this subparagraphif --
(i) thealienhasextraordinaryability in thesciences,arts,education,business,or
athleticswhich has been demonstratedby sustainednational or international
acclaim and whose achievementshave been recognizedin the field through
extensivedocumentation,
Page3
(ii) the alien seeksto enterthe United Statesto continuework in the areaof
extraordinaryability,and
(iii) the alien's entryinto the United Stateswill substantiallybenefitprospectively
theUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta veryhigh standardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R..723 101stCong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability" refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.Id.;
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien'ssustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(that is, a major,internationalrecognizedaward)or
throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten categoriesof evidence
listedat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof AppealsfortheNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof apetition
filed underthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010). Althoughthecourt
upheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's evaluationof
evidencesubmittedto meeta givenevidentiarycriterion.' With respectto the criteriaat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhile USCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedtomeetthosetwocriteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at1121-22.
The court statedthat the AAO's evaluationrestedon an improperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceaspart of the initial inquiry, the court statedthat "the
properprocedureis to countthetypesof evidenceprovided(which theAAO did)," andif thepetitioner
failed to submitsufficientevidence,"the properconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed to satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof three types of evidence(as the AAO concluded)."Id. at 1122 (citing to
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazariansetsforth a two-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof a final meritsdetermination. In this matter,theAAO will review theevidenceunder
theplainlanguagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed.As thepetitionerdid notsubmitqualifying
evidenceunderatleastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
Specifically,the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterallyimposednovel substantiveor evidentiary
requirementsbeyondthose set forth in the regulationsat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iv)and 8C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
II. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for which classificationis
sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof their members,asjudgedby recognizednational
or internationalexpertsin their disciplinesorfields.
Thiscriterioncontainsseveralevidentiaryelementsthepetitionermustsatisfy.First,thepetitionermust
dernonstratethatsheisamemberof morethanoneassociationin herfield. Second,thepetitionermust
demonstratethat the associationsrequireoutstandingachievements(in the plural)of their members.
The final requirementis that admittanceis judged,or adjudicated,by nationallyor internationally
recognizedexpertsin theirfield. Thepetitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto
meettheplainlanguagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
The petitionerprovideddocumentaryevidencerelatedto her employment which
consistedof acertificateof completionof the acongratulatorynotedated
March 15.2010,on beingthe employeeof the year,anda letterindicatingthe petitioner'sperfect
attendancein March of 2010. The director determinedthat the petitionerfailed to meet the
requirementsof thiscriterion.
On appeal,counselfailed to identify a specificerror in fact or error in the applicationof the law
attributableto the director. Counselmerely expressesdisagreementwith the director's derogatory
determinationasit relatedtothiscriterion.Counselstatedwithintheappellatebrief:'Mis one
of thepremierairlinesin theworldthatonlyacceptsthetoptalentin theworldtoservein highpositions
suchasthe Beneficiary'sposition,which is responsiblefor themostimportantmarketsin the world
(Brazil)." Counselfailed to addressthe director's conclusionthat working for M was
insufficientevidenceto demonstratethepetitioner'smembershipin anassociationin accordancewith
theregulation.Thepetitioner,throughcounsel,makesonly passingreferenceto this issue,asserting
that the petitioner's employmentat demonstratedthe petitioner's eligibility under this
criterion. Thus, the petitioner failed to identify an incorrectapplicationof law or statementof fact
underlyingthe director's finding that the petitioner'sevidencewas insufficient. The AAO, therefore,
considersthis issueto be abandoned. Desravinesv. U.S.Atty. Gen.,343 Fed.Appx. 433, 435 (11th
Cir. 2009) (a passingreferencein the argumentssectionof a brief without substantiveargumentsis
insufficientto raisethatgroundonappeal).
Regardless,theAAO findsthatajob with acompanyis notamembershipin anassociationasrequired
undertheplainlanguageof thiscriterion. In fact,thepetitioneralsorelieson thisevidenceto meetthe
leadingor critical role for organizationsor establishmentswith a distinguishedreputationcriterion
pursuantto 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii).To allow thepetitionerto rely on thisform of evidencein an
Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimto meetor submitevidencerelatingto theregulatorycategoriesof evidencenot
discussedin thisdecision.
Page5
attemptto meetmultiple criteriawould rendermeaninglessthe statutoryrequirementfor extensive
evidenceat section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct, or the regulatoryrequirementthata petitionermeetat
leastthreeseparatecriteriaat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).This decisionaddressesthecriterionat8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(viii)below.
Additionally,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii)requiresevidenceof
"membershipin associations"in the plural, which is consistentwith the statutoryrequirementfor
extensiveevidence.Section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct. Significantly,notall of thecriteriaat8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)arewordedin theplural. Specifically,theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and
(ix) onlyrequireserviceon a singlejudgingpanelor a singlehighsalary.Whena regulatorycriterion
wishesto includethe singularwithin the plural,it expresslydoesso as when it statesat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)thatevidenceof experiencemustbein theformof "letter(s)." Thus,theAAO can
infer thattheplural in theremainingregulatorycriteriahasmeaning. In a differentcontext,federal
courtshaveupheldUSCIS'abilityto interpretsignificancefromwhetherthesingularor pluralisusedin
a regulation.SeeMaramjayav. USC/S,Civ. Act. No.06-2158(RCL)at *1, *12 (D.C.Cir. March26,
2008);Snapnames.comInc. v. Chertoff,2006 WL 3491005at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006)
(upholdingan interpretationthattheregulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreign
equivalentdegreeat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(1)(2)requiresa single degreeratherthan a combinationof
academiccredentials).
Hence,the petitionerhasnot submittedevidencethatmeetsthe plain languagerequirementsof this
cntenon.
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
Theplainlanguageof thisregulatorycriterioncontainsmultipleevidentiaryelementsthatthepetitioner
mustsatisfy. Thefirst is evidenceof thepetitioner'scontributions(in theplural)to herfield. These
contributionsmusthavealreadybeenrealizedratherthanbeingpotential,futurecontributions.The
petitioner must also dernonstrate that her contributions are original. The evidence must establish that
the contributionsare scientific, scholarly,artistic, athletic, or business-relatedin nature. The final
requirementis thatthecontributionsriseto thelevel of majorsignificancein thefield asa whole,rather
thanto a projector to anorganization.Thephrase"major significance"is not superfluousand,thus.it
hassomemeaning.Silvermanv. EastrichMultiple InvestorFund,LP., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3'dCir. 1995)
quotedin APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2"dCir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributionsof major
significanceconnotesthat the petitioner's work has significantly impactedthe field. The petitioner
mustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meettheplainlanguagerequirementsof this
cnterion.
Thepetitionerprovidedlettersfrom travelindustryexperts.Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitioner
failedtomeettherequirementsof thiscriterion.
Page6
Within theappellatebrief,counselrestatesthecontentof thelettersfrom industryexperts.Although
counselquotesattestationsof contributionsthepetitionerhasmadetoindividualcompanies,hefailedto
identifyany impactthepetitionerhashadon thetravelindustryasa wholethatcanbeconsidereda
contributionof majorsignificance.Thepetitioner,throughcounsel,makesonly passingreferenceto
this issue,assertingthat the petitioner'simprovementof the performanceof individual companies
demonstratedthe petitioner'seligibility underthis criterion. Thus, the petitioner failed to identify an
incorrectapplicationof law or statementof fact underlyingthe director's finding that the petitioner's
evidencewasinsufficient.TheAAO, therefore,considersthisissueto beabandoned.Desravinesn
U.S.Atty. Gen.,343Fed.Appx.at435(a passingreferencein theargumentssectionof a brief without
substantiveargumentsis insufficienttoraisethatgroundonappeal).
The etitioner rovidedtwo lettersacco anied deficienttranslations;the lettersfrom
andfrom Additionally,thepetitionerprovideda
letterfrom the , which doesnot bearthenameof anyindividualfrom this
company. As this letter doesnot identify any official from it carriesdiminished
evidentiaryweight.
Thelettersaccompaniedby deficienttranslationsarenotin accordancewith 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3)as
thelettersarenot"accompaniedby afull Englishlanguagetranslationwhichthetranslatorhascertified
ascompleteand accurate,andby the translator'scertification that he or sheis competentto translate
fromtheforeignlanguageintoEnglish."
rheats ecial s d'thtat
nto the best of all the Europeanairlineson the Latin-Americanmarket." These
contributionsto fall shortof demonstratingtherequisitecontributionsin thefieldasawhole.
The letter from ' a tourismcompanycrediteda long-
standingrelationshipbetweenhis companyand to the petitioner,and he describedthe
petitioner'sabilitiesin thetravelindustry. Although assertsthatBraziliantourismranks
third to the United States,neither his letter nor the record re ect that this ranking or its resulting
economicimpactis attributableto thepetitioner'scontributionsin herfield.
While theremainingevidencereferencedthe petitioner'sabilitiesandtalentswithin the travelindustry,
eachform of evidencefailed to specify an impact the petitioner has had on her field as a whole.
Deficientevidencethat merelydemonstratesan impact at the companylevel or below is not in
accordancewith thelevelof influenceasanticipatedby theregulation.
Vague,solicitedlettersfrom localcolleaguesthatdo not specificallyidentifycontributionsor provide
specificexamplesof howthosecontributionsinfluencedthefield areinsufficient.Kazarianv. USCIS,
580F.3d1030,1036(9thCir.2009)af'd inpart 596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).In 2010,theKazarian
courtreiteratedthattheAAO's conclusionthat"lettersfromphysicsprofessorsattestingto [thealien's]
contributionsin the field" was insufficientwas "consistentwith the relevantregulatorylanguage."
596F.3dat 1122.Theopinionsof expertsin thefieldarenotwithoutweightandhavebeenconsidered
Page7
above. Whilesuchletterscanprovideimportantdetailsaboutthepetitioner'sskills,theycannotform
the cornerstoneof a successfulextraordinaryability claim. USCISmay, in its discretion,useas
advisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedas experttestimony. SeeMatter of Caron International,
19I&N Dec.791,795(Comm'r1988).However,USCISisultimatelyresponsibleformakingthefinal
determinationregardinganalien'seligibility for thebenefitsought.Id. Thesubmissionof lettersfrom
expertssupportingthe petitionis not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmay evaluatethe
contentof thoselettersasto whethertheysupportthealien's eligibility. Seeid. at 795;seealsoMatter
of V-K-,24l&N Dec.500,n.2(BIA 2008)(notingthatexpertopiniontestimonydoesnotpurporttobe
evidenceasto "fact"). USCISmayevengive lessweightto an opinionthat is not corroborated,in
accordwith otherinformationor is in anyway questionable.Id. at 795;seealsoMatter of Soffici,
22I&N Dec.at 165(citingMatterof TreasureCraft of California,14 I&N Dec.at 190). Thus,the
content of the writers' statementsand how they becameaware of the petitioner's reputationare
importantconsiderations.Evenwhenwrittenby independentexperts,letterssolicitedby an alienin
supportof animmigrationpetitionareof lessweight thanpreexisting,independentevidenceof original
contributionsof majorsignificance.
Consequently,thepetitionerhasnot submittedevidencethatmeetstheplain languagerequirementsof
thiscriterion.
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for orgamzations or
establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation.
This criterion anticipatesthat a leading role should be apparentby its position in the overall
organizationalhierarchyandthatit beaccompaniedbytherole'smatchingduties.A criticalroleshould
be apparentfrom the petitioner's impact on the organizationor the establishment'sactivities. The
petitioner'sperformancein this role shouldestablishwhetherthe role wascritical for organizationsor
establishmentsasa whole. Thepetitionermustdemonstratethattheorganizationsor establishments(in
theplural)havea distinguishedreputation.While neithertheregulationnor precedentspeakto what
constitutesa distinguishedreputation,Merriam-Webster'sonlinedictionarydefinesdistinguishedas,
"marked by eminence,distinction,or excellence."3Dictionariesare not of themselvesevidence,but
theymaybereferredto asaidsto thememoryandunderstandingof thecourt. Nix v.Hedden,149U.S.
304, 306 (1893). Therefore,it is the petitioner's burden to demonstratethat the organizationsor
establishmentsclaimed under this criterion are marked by eminence,distinction, excellence,or an
equivalentreputation. Thepetitionermustsubmitevidencesatisfyingall of theseelementsto meetthe
plain languagerequirementsof thiscriterion.
Thepetitionerprovidedtwo lettersandtwo photographs.Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitioner
failedtomeettherequirementsof thiscriterion.
Seehttp2avvnv,merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished,[accessedonJune26,2012,acopyof whichis
incorporatedinto therecordof proceeding.]
Page8
The letter from dated
April 19,2007,merelyindicatedthatthepetitionerhadperfectattendancefor themonthof March2007,
andthatthisattendancerecordassistedthecompanyin reachingits productivityobjectives.Theletter
from of the United Statesaffiliate of
, expressesgratitudefor thepetitioner'sperformancein theaftermathof the accident
in Brazil. Theletterreco nizestheemotionaltoll of thatwork andassuresthatmanagementis at the
petitioner'sdisposal. letterdoesnotsingleoutanyspecificactionsof thepetitionerthatcan
be construedto constitutea leadingor critical role the petitionermight haveperformedduringthe
aftermathof theaccident.
Additionally,theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)requiresevidenceof
performingin a leadingor critical role for "organizationsor establishments"in the plural,which is
consistentwith thestatutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidence.Section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct.
Significantly,notall of thecriteriaat8 C.F.R.§204.5(b)(3)arewordedin theplural. Specifically,the
regulationsat 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(ix) only requireserviceon a singlejudgingpanelor a
singlehigh salary. Whena regulatorycriterionwishesto includethe singularwithin the plural,it
expresslydoessoaswhenit statesat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)thatevidenceof experiencemustbe
in the formof "letter(s)." Thus,theAAO caninferthatthepluralin theremainingregulatorycriteria
hasmeaning.In adifferentcontext,federalcourtshaveupheldUSCIS'abilityto interpretsignificance
from whetherthesingularor plural is usedin a regulation.SeeMaramjaya,Civ. Act. No. 06-2158
(RCL)at *1, *12:Snapnames.comInc.,2006WL 3491005at *1, *10 (upholdinganinterpretationthat
the regulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreignequivalentdegreeat 8C.F.R.
§ 204.5(l)(2)requiresasingledegreeratherthanacombinationof academiccredentials).In thepresent
case,thepetitioneronlyclaimedeligibilityunderthiscriterionfor asinglecompany,
Thedirectordiscussedtheevidencesubmittedpursuant8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)andfoundthatthe
petitionerfailed to establishher eligibility. On appeal,the petitioner,throughcounselonly makes
referenceto this issue,assertingthat the evidencesubmittedwith the initial petition demonstratedher
eligibility underthis criterion. The petitionerfailed to identify an incorrectapplicationof law or
statementof fact underlyingthe director'sdeterminationthattheperfectattendanceduringMarchof
2007, and her actionsafter an apparentairline accident,was insufficient. The AAO, therefore,
considersthisissueto beabandoned.Desravinesv. U.S.Atty. Gen.,343Fed.Appx.at435(a passing
referencein theargumentssectionof a briefwithoutsubstantiveargumentsis insufficientto raisethat
groundon appeal).
As a result,thepetitionerhasnotsubmittedevidencethatmeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof this
criterion.
Evidencethatthealienhascommandeda highsalaryor othersignificantlyhighremunerationfor
services,in relation to othersin thefield.
Thepetitioncrprovidedaletterfrom na foreignlanguage.Thisletterisaccompaniedby a
deficient translationthat is not in accordancewith 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3)as the letter is not
Page9
"accompaniedby a full Englishlanguagetranslationwhichthetranslatorhascertifiedascompleteand
accurate,andby thetranslator'scertificationthatheor sheis competentto translatefrom the foreign
languageinto English." As such,thedirectorput the petitioneron noticeof this deficiencywithin the
RFE;however,thepetitionerelectedto notifythedirectorthatthetranslationswerein compliancewith
theregulationsandchosenot to submitrevisedevidence.Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitioner
failedto meettherequirementsof thiscriterion.
Onappeal,counselassertsthattheindividualwhoperformedthetranslationis fluentin bothFrenchand
Englishandcertifiedtheaccuracyof theaforementionedtranslation.However,theregulationrequires
thatanyforeignlanguagedocumentbeaccompaniedby a full Englishtranslationthatthetranslatorhas
certifiedascompleteandaccurate,andthatthe translatoris competentto translatefrom the foreign
languageinto English.Theprovidedtranslationmerelystated:"Translationfrom theFrenchlanguage:
datedNovember23,2010by " Thisdocumentlacksacertificationthatthetranslation
iscompleteandaccurateandthatthetranslatoris competentto translatefrom theFrenchlanguageinto
English.
Moreover,counselmakesno attemptto addressthe director'saccurateconclusionthat thepetitioner
failed to provide evidencethat this bonus,assumingit was actually issued,constitutesother
significantlyhigh remunerationfor servicesin relationto othersin thefield asrequiredundertheplain
languageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ix).TheAAO concursthattherecordcontainsno
evidencethatwould allow the AAO to comparethe petitioner'sbonusto otherremunerationin her
field. TheAAO furthernotesthatthedirectorrequestedsuchevidencefor comparisonpurposesin the
RFEandthatcounsel'sresponsealsofailedto addressthisevidentiaryrequirement.Thus,evenif the
petitionerhadsubmittedsuchevidenceon appeal,the AAO would not considerit. SeeMatter of
Soriano,19I&N Dec.764,766(BIA 1988);seealsoMatterofObaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,537(BIA
1988).
Therefore,thepetitionerhasnot submittedevidencethatmeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof this
criterion.
B. ComparableEvidence
On appeal,counselalsoassertsthatthedirectorerredin concludingthatthepetitionerhadnotsubmitted
comparableevidenceandreferencesthelettersfrom travelindustryexperts.The regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(4)allowsanaliento submitcomparableevidenceif thealienis ableto demonstratethathe
or sheis unableto qualifyfor thisclassificationbecausethestandardsat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)
arenot readilyapplicableto the alien'soccupation.It is the petitioner'sburdento explainwhy the
regulatorycriteria are not readilyapplicableto her occupationandhow the evidencesubmittedis
"comparable"to the objectiveevidencerequiredat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).The regulatory
languageprecludestheconsiderationof comparableevidencein thiscase,asthereis no indicationthat
thestandardsat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)arenot readilyapplicableto thepetitioner'soccupation.In fact,
as indicatedin this decision,counselmentionedevidencein the brief andat the time of the initial
petitionfiling thatspecificallyaddressedat leastfour of the tencriteriaat the regulationat 8C.F.R.
Page10
§ 204.5(h)(3). Additionally, these letters were consideredunder the criterion at 8C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(v).Finally,counselhasnot explainedhow thesenecessarilysubjectiveopinionsare
"comparable"to thestandardssetforth at8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Whereanalienis simplyunableto
meetor submitdocumentaryevidenceof at leastthreeof thesecriteria,the plain languageof the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(4)doesnot allow for the submissionof comparableevidence.As
such,noevidencethatthepetitionersubmittedwill beconsideredascomparableevidence.
C. Summary
Thepetitionerhasfailedtosatisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.
III. CONCLUSION
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstrate
thatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandisoneof thesmallpercentage
whohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Had the petitionersubmittedthe requisiteevidenceunderat leastthreeevidentiarycategones,m
accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determinationthat
considersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhasdemonstrated:(l) a
"level of expertiseindicatingthatthe individualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento the
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor"and(2) "that the alienhassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthat his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise." 8C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(2)and(3); seealsoKazarian,596 F.3dat 1119-20.While theAAO concludesthatthe
evidenceis not indicativeof a levelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmallpercentageattheverytopof
thefield or sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO neednot explainthatconclusionin a
final meritsdetermination.4 Rather,theproperconclusionisthatthepetitionerhasfailedto satisfythe
antecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id. at 1122.
Thepetitionerhasnotestablishedeligibilitypursuanttosection203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthepetition
maynotbeapproved.
4The AAO maintainsde novoreviewof all questionsof fact andlaw. SeeSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d143,145(3dCir.
2m4).Inanyfutureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdictiontoconductafinalmeritsdeterminationasthe
officethatmadethelastdecisionin thismatter.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealsosection103(a)(1)of theAct;
section204(b)of theAct; DHSDelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch1,2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1(2003);8
C.F.R.§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003);MatterofAurelio,19I&N Dec.458,460(BIA 1987)(holdingthatlegacyINS,
now USCIS,is thesoleauthoritywith thejurisdiction to decidevisapetitions).
Page11
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of the
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361;Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)). Here, the petitionerhas not sustainedthat burden.
Accordingly,theappealwill bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.