dismissed EB-1A Case: Karate

5 v 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of/e ofAdrninistrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 3 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
zohn F. Grisso LJ 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. 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. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in 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. $204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on August 14,2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in the martial arts (karate). Regarding his plans for employment in the United States, the 
petitioner submitted an August 13, 2007 affidavit stating: 
I have a plan to open a training school of Karate where people can get basic to advance level 
of Karate training so that they could protect the country as well as themselves from the 
terrorist or other bad guys. Thus, I have also a plan to organize 
international/national/regional or local tournament to promote the Karate arts if I am 
permitted to stay in the United States. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter ffom the president 
of the Falcon International Karate Do Association in Woodhaven, New York stating: "[The 
petitioner] is enrolling in our Instructor Program since September 28, 2007 and as soon as he will 
finish this course and his immigration status is legal at this country, he will start working as a karate 
Instructor here at Falcon International Karate Do Association." 
Aside from his activities as a karate instructor and coach, the record includes evidence showing that 
the petitioner competed in national and international karate competitions from the mid-1990s to 
2004. However, according to the petitioner's affidavit and the letter from the Falcon International 
Karate Do Association, he is seeking work in the United States as a karate instructor rather than as a 
competitive athlete. Subsequent to 2004, there is no evidence indicating that the petitioner, age 34 at 
the time of filing, has remained active as a karate competitor at the national or international level. 
The statute and regulations require the petitioner's national or international acclaim to be sustained and 
that he seeks to continue work in hs area of expertise in the United States. See sections 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $$ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. 
$5 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While a karate competitor and an instructor certainly share knowledge of the 
sport, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive athletics and karate 
instruction are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in Federal Court. 
In Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002), the court stated: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as 
working in the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any 
profession in that field. For example, Lee's extraordinary ability as a baseball player does 
not imply that he also has extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball 
industry such as a manager, umpire or coach. 
Id. at 918. The court noted a consistent history in this area. In the present matter, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim through 
achievements as a karate competitor subsequent to 2004 or that he intends to compete here in the 
United States. Further, the evidence is clear that the petitioner intends to work as a karate instructor. 
While the petitioner's athletic accomplishments as karate competitor are not completely irrelevant 
and will be given some consideration, ultimately he must satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h)(3) through his achievements as a karate instructor and coach. 
Page 4 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualifL 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. 
$ 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. 
$ 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 submitted a certificate fiom the Full-contact Submission Arts (F.S.A.) Kenshinkan 
Karate Federation stating that he attained "the First Rank in black belt Shodan." The petitioner also 
submitted certificates from the Nepal Kyokushin Karate-Do stating that he successfully completed 
the basic methods and techniques of karate and attained the rank of 2" Dan Black Belt. The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner's receipt of "nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field." The preceding certificates reflect that the 
petitioner earned a promotion in rank based on his successfbl completion of a karate skills 
examination. Such promotions are inherent to the martial arts and they represent standardized 
progression to the next skill level. Further, there is no evidence showing that the ceremony in which 
the petitioner received his certificates commanded national or international recognition. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that his successful mastery of required methods and 
techniques and attainment of a higher Dan ranking constitutes his receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards. 
The petitioner also submitted the following: 
1. Award certificate stating that the petitioner "won the award in International F.S.A. 
Absolute 1 tournament according to daily practice results and showing good Karate-do 
spirit" (September 26,2003). 
2. Award certificate and tournament results reflecting that the petitioner placed second in 
the Light Weight Division at the 2003 F.S.A. Absolute tournament. 
3. Certificate stating that the petitioner received a medal for placing third in the "Men Open 
Weight Category" at the "First Tharnel National Open Full Contact Karate Tournament" 
(February 1 999). 
4. Certificate stating that the petitioner was recognized "for his achievement as a Best 
Fighter on First Imadol Kyokushin Karate (Full Contact) Tournament" (1996). 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
The record does not include supporting evidence demonstrating the significance and magnitude of 
the preceding competitions. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally 
recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. In 
this case, there is no evidence showing that petitioner's awards commanded a significant level of 
recognition beyond the competitive events where they were presented. 
In his affidavit, the petitioner claims to have won a First Prize at the Muay Thai Challenge 
Tournament in Bangkok in 2004, but there is no evidence from the presenting organization showing 
that he actually received this prize. 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. 1 58, 1 65 (Comm. 1 998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 1 4 I&N Dec. 1 90 
(Reg. Comm. 1972)). A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 
8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(2)(i). In this instance, there is no evidence 
establishing that the petitioner received a First Prize at the Muay Thai Challenge Tournament or that 
the prize was nationally or internationally recognized in his field. 
The record lacks evidence indicating that the petitioner has received awards in karate competition 
subsequent to 2003 or that he intends to continue competing in the United States. As discussed 
previously, the statute and regulations require the beneficiary's national or international acclaim to be 
sustained and that he seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See sections 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $8 11 53(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. 
$8 204.5(h)(3) and (5). While the petitioner's awards as a competitive athlete are not completely 
irrelevant and will be given some consideration, ultimately he must satisfy the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through his achievements as an instructor or a coach. As such, the 
petitioner's awards and competitive results demonstrating his past record of success as a karate 
competitor from the 1990s to 2003 cannot serve to meet this regulatory criterion. 
Nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards won by karate competitors coached 
primarily by the petitioner,. however, can be considered for this criterion. 
 In-that regard, the 
- - -. 
petitioner submitted a letter fi-om-, President, Nepal International Taekwon- 
Do Federation. stating. that the ~etitioner "has ~roduced numerous  lavers who have achieved the 
I d 
National and liternational l it lei." ietter does specifically identify the athletes coached 
by the petitioner or the titles that they won. In this case, there is no evidence showing that karate 
athletes coached primarily by the petitioner have won nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which 
classiJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orJelds. 
Page 6 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a certification &om the International F.S.A. Kenshinkan Karate Organization 
Head Office in Japan stating that he has "membership in Headquarters" and has "responsibility as a 
Branch Chief in Nepal." The petitioner also submitted a letter fiom the Nepal Kyokushin Karate-Do 
Association stating that the petitioner has attained a black belt ranking in its organization. While the 
petitioner has met the requirements to attain his belt ranking and serve as a branch chief, there is no 
evidence demonstrating that either of the preceding organizations requires a black belt to become a 
Nor is there evidence identifying the specific requirements that must be satisfied to attain a 
black belt or a Branch Chef position. The record does not include evidence (such as membership 
bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that the preceding organizations require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the martial arts. 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 clarssiJication 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 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level fi-om a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.3 
The petitioner submitted articles in Gorkha Patra and Budora, but these articles were not primarily 
about him. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published material be "about 
the alien." The petitioner also submitted articles about hm in Sanjiveeny Patra, Saptahik Janasatta, 
Nepal Sarnachar Patra, Himal National Monthly, Kantipur, Annapurna, and Kavre Times. In response 
2 
For example, there is no evidence showing that lower belt rankings are excluded from membership. 
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. 
to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from the Chief Editor of 
Sanjiveeny Patra asserting that the paper is a "leading national daily" paper in Nepal with weekly 
circulation of 100,000 copies, a letter from the Senior Assistant Editor of Nepal Samachar Patra 
asserting that the publication is a "leading News Paper in Nepal" with a daily circulation of 100,000 
copies, and a letter from the Associate Editor of Kavre Times asserting that the publication is "one of 
the leading weekly News Paper [sic] in Nepal" with a circulation of 50,000 copies. The self-serving 
nature of the statements fi-om these editors is not sufficient to demonstrate that their publications qualify 
as forms of major media. The record lacks objective circulation information from an independent 
source showing the ranking of the newspapers relative to other national media. With regard to the 
national distribution of Kantipur, counsel cites information obtained from Wikipedia. Regarding 
information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this 
open, user-edited internet site.4 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, No. 07-2276 (8th Cir. 
August 29, 2008). Accordingly, we will not assign weight to information for which Wikipedia is the 
only cited source. 
In this case, the petitioner has not submitted evidence establishing that the preceding articles were in 
professional or major trade publications or some other form of major media. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedJield of speciJication for which classiJication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5@)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability 
must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight 
given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3)(iv), therefore, depends 
on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard 
4 
 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GURANTEE OF VALIDITY. Fikipedia is an online open-content collaborative 
encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource 
of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. 
Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required 
to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of 
the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or 
altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See htt~://en.wiki~edia.or~/wilu/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on April 20, 2009, copy incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. 
Page 8 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner submitted a December 25,2005 participation certificate and a March 26,2008 letter from 
, 6' Degree Black Belt, and Chief Examiner and Chief Instructor of the 
International F.S.A. Kenshinkan Karate Organization of India, stating that the petitioner "was the main 
referee" at the First National F.S.A. Kenshinkan Karate Tournament in December 2005. The petitioner 
also submitted a digital video disc showing footage fiom the tournament. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate acknowledging his participation as an "Assistant Referee" at the 
"Second Banasthali and First Late Tirtha Ratna Bajracharya Memorial all Nepal Full Contact Men 
Weight Category and Women open category Karate Tournament 2006." The petitioner also submitted 
a letter of appreciation for his participation as an "Assistant Referee" at the First Baghmati Zonal Open 
Karate Tournament in November 2001. 
In his affidavit, the petitioner claims to have refereed at the "Banasthali Kyokushin Karate 
Tournament" in Kathmandu on February 24, 2007, but there is no evidence from the tournament 
organizers confirming his participation. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 1 58, 1 65 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N at 190). 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. 
 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
 In this instance, there is no evidence establishing the petitioner's 
participation as a referee. 
With regard to the petitioner's participation as a referee at the preceding karate tournaments, the 
record lacks official competition rules showing that serving as a "referee" is tantamount to 
participation as a "judge" of the work of others. Even if the petitioner were to establish that 
refereeing a karate tournament is tantamount to judging the work of others in his field, there is no 
evidence showing the names of the athletes evaluated by the petitioner, their level of expertise, 
documentation of his assessments, or the level of acclaim associated with judging at the events. 
Without evidence showing, for example, that the petitioner's activities involved judging top 
competitors or were otherwise 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 scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signijicance in the field. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner introduced F.S.A. Kenshinkan Karate in Nepal. The 
petitioner submitted a November 20, 2003 article in Nepal Samachar Patra entitled "New Karate 
Kenshinkan" stating: 
Page 9 
The Kenshinkan Karate is the latest one to be introduced in Nepal. Kyokushin Karate Branch 
Chief of Kavre, [the petitioner], has introduced this Karate from Japan with the help of Mr. 
. Mr. 
 10~ Dan of Kenshinkan[,] introduced with the mixture 
of Full Contact and Submission Art in the Land of Martial Art. 
To learn about it and to introduce in Nepal, [the petitioner] has been to Japan [i]n July. He 
lear[ned] Kenshinkan Special Cour[s]e . . . . 
According to the preceding article, - of Japan was the original creator of 
Kenshinkan Karate. While the petitioner may have co-introduced this form of karate in Nepal after his 
tutelage in Japan, there is no evidence showing that Kenshinkan Karate was his own original 
contribution or that its introduction in Nepal was a contribution of major significance in the martial arts. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of brief reference letters from the Kyokushin Karate 
Organization, Nepal Kyokushin Karate-Do Association, Nepal International Taekwon-Do, 
Federation, and the Nepal Branch of the International F.S.A. Kenshinkan Karate Organization 
praising his talents as a competitor and an instructor. Talent in one's field, however, is not 
necessarily indicative of original athletic contributions of major significance. The record lacks 
evidence showing that the petitioner has made original contributions that have significantly 
influenced or impacted his field. 
With regard to the petitioner's athletic and coaching achievements, the reference letters do not 
specify exactly what the petitioner's orignal contributions in karate have been, nor is there an 
explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major significance to the martial arts. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 helped his students with 
their skills and training, there is nothing in the reference letters to suggest that he has developed 
original training techniques, as opposed to methodologies passed down from his own tutelage in the 
sport. Further, even if the techniques taught by the petitioner were found to be original, there is 
nothing to demonstrate that these techniques have had major significance in the martial arts. For 
example, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's training techniques have been widely 
adopted throughout his sport or have significantly influenced others in his sport nationally or 
internationally. 
In this case, the reference letters submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
These letters, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary 
ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Cornrnr. 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 of support from the petitioner's personal 
contacts 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. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
Page 10 
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 that one would expect of a martial arts athlete or a karate 
instructor who has sustained national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation 
showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his 
sport, or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot 
conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner's role as Branch Chief of the F.S.A. Kenshinkan Karate 
Organization in Nepal meets this regulatory criterion. With regard to the petitioner's role for this 
organization, there is no evidence showing that the Nepal branch has a distinguished reputation. 
Further, the record lacks supporting evidence demonstrating the leading or critical nature of the 
petitioner's role. For example, there is no information detailing petitioner's specific duties as 
Branch Chief or the importance of his role to the organization's operations. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signlJcantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in thejeld. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted letters from the Kabhre 
English Secondary School, the Shree Bekateswor English School, the Nightingale Academy, the 
Saraswati Shiksha Griha Secondary School, the Gyankunja Cooperative Society Ltd., and the Shree 
Chakra Jyoti L. Secondary School specifying his monthly salary while employed by them. The 
petitioner also submitted a statement from his accountant reflecting his "net assets" and "annual 
income" for 2006. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit 
evidence of a high salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for 
comparison showing that hs 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 his 
receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 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). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.