dismissed EB-1A Case: Law And Economics

(b)(6)
Date: 
JUL 2 5 2014 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachus etts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529 -2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
APPLICATION: 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 : 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision . Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
;;;:;(~ 
Ron Rosenberg r-
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on January 26, 2012. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which the 
director dismissed on December 4, 2012. The petitioner then filed a motion to reopen, which the 
director dismissed on September 20, 2013. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in education, as a professor of 
law and economics, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director made multiple errors of fact and law in his prior 
decisions relating to the I-140 petition. Specifically, the petitioner asserts that the director erred in 
concluding that petitioner had not documented a one-time achievement or submitted evidence sufficient 
to meet at least three criteria. The petitioner also raises several arguments on appeal relating to work 
authorization, advance parole, a pending I-485 application, and delayed processing times. The only 
form before us on appeal, however, is the Form I-140, and this decision is limited to that petition. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability.-- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation , 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 H.R. 723 101
51 
Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld our decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), 
the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent 
"final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that our evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper 
procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner failed 
to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, we will review the evidence under the 
plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that we had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
1. One-Time Achievement 
The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirement for a one-time achievement, as 
outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In asserting that the one-time achievement requirement was met, the 
petitioner submitted documentary evidence showing that he won the Specifically, the 
petitioner submitted (1) an attestation from Coordinator of an unidentified 
organization, affirming. that the petitioner won the in the Single Judge category, 
(2) a photograph of the petitioner at an Innovare event with a caption from an unidentified source 
attesting to the award, and (3) an confirming that the petitioner is the author of an 
award-winning project in the Individual Judge category. 
As evidence of the significance of this award, the petitioner initially submitted a webpage from the 
website which states: 
The objective of the prize Innovare is to identify, reward and disseminate innovative 
practices carried out by magistrates, members of the State and federal Prosecutors, 
public defenders and public and private lawyers from all over Brazil, which are 
increasing the quality of judicial service and contributing to the modernisation of [] 
Brazilian justice. 
The petitioner also submitted an online article stating that a practice in the Dominican Republic won the 
first International category of this award i The article specifically states that 
included an International category for the first time in , five years after the petitioner's award. In 
response to the director's Request for Evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted an online article from 
The article states that the recognizes the 
top for improving the quality of its justice system, and does not 
indicate that an international rize existed prior to Similarly, the other new materials 
relating to the International Prize on or after do not indicate that the International Prize 
existed prior to The one new article discussing a pre-2010 awardee, from 
states: ' was created in Brazil in to recognize, 
award and foster knowledge about innovative practices in [the] Rule of Law among Brazil's judiciary, 
prosecutors, pubic defendants and lawyers." This article does not suggest that the award had an 
international component prior to 
Based on this information, the director concluded that the petitioner had not established that he had won 
an international version of the In the motion to reconsider, the petitioner asked that 
the director reconsider that conclusion without explaining how the director erred. The director 
reaffirmed the initial determination. In the motion to reopen, the petitioner no longer asserted that this 
2 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
award is a major internationally recognized award. On appeal , the petitioner asserts: "The affidavits 
and documents attached had showed that is internationally recognized as one of the 
top awards for Judges of America, Europe and [the] United Kingdom' by the International Bar 
Association, Human Rights Institute, Latin Lawyer, Supreme Courts and Attorney General Offices." 
Congress' example of a one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Significantly, even a lesser 
internationally recognized award could serve to meet only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an 
alien must meet at least three. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the example 
provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the nationality of the 
awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large and includes a large cash prize. The petitioner did not 
submit independent objective evidence, which establishes that either one of the two types of the 
·sa major, internationally recognized award. 
Neither the statute nor the legislative history addresses what awards less prestigious and recognized 
than the Nobel Prize qualify as major, internationally recognized awards. Rijal v. USCIS, 772 
F.Supp. 2d 1339, 1345 (W.D. Wash. 2011) aff'd 683 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012). Congress felt it 
unnecessary and perhaps inadvisable to define "major" in this context and, instead, entrusted that 
decision to the administrative process. !d. 
As stated by the director, the petitioner has not established he won the 
which did not exist in 2005 when the petitioner won the The petitioner has not 
established that his national level prize is a one-time achievement, defined as a major internationally 
recognized award. For example, the petitioner did not submit evidence that, prior to 2010, the 
professional, trade or general media 
at a global level covered the issuance of these awards. 
2. Remaining Evidentiary Categories 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The petitioner has submitted the following evidence pursuant to this criterion: 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner does not continue to assert that the last three items are qualifying, and the petitioner did 
not establish that they are more than local or regional in scope. Moreover, the fourth item does not 
name the petitioner. 
The director concluded that is nationally recognized, but is only one award for a criterion 
that, consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence at section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, requires awards or prizes in the plural. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the Diploma of Merit 
of Accounting is also nationally recognized. 
Regarding the Diploma of Merit of Accounting, the petitioner submitted, along with the certificate for 
the award, an English-language 1992 resolution by a Brazilian authority that addresses the selection 
process for the Diploma of Merit. The document bears no indicia that it is a copy from an official 
publication or downloaded from a website. Without documentation of the source of this information, 
the document has limited probative value. Moreover, the selection criteria indicate that while both the 
Federal Accounting Council and Regional Accounting councils can name candidates, it is the Federal 
Accounting Council that selects the winners by majority vote. The petitioner's certificate , however, is 
from the Regional Council of Accounting of the State of Sao Paulo. Moreover, the resolution states that 
the diplomas recognize "those that have distinguished themselves in a remarkable or relevant [way] and 
contributed directly or indirectly, for the improvement and enhancement of the supervisory bodies of 
the profession." The petitioner's diploma, however, recognizes only "relevant and good professional 
services rendered to the accounting profession and society." Thus, the petitioner has not established 
that his certificate from a regional authority is the same certificate that the resolution addresses. The 
petitioner, therefore, has not established that it is a nationally recognized award for excellence. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish his eligibility for this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The director determined that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of the regulation. The 
petitioner has discussed membership in several associations, but on appeal relies solely on membership 
in the following : 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
The petitioner also relies on his election as a Counselor of the The 
petitioner asserts that only an extraordinary professional can have five memberships in different fields 
of research. The petitioner further asserts that the requirement for outstanding achievements for 
counselors of the is apparent from the small number of counselors. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Along with the Form I-140 petition, the petitioner submitted copies of his membership cards for various 
associations without any evidence pertaining to the membership requirements for the associations. 
Moreover, these cards do not all match the associations the petitioner discusses. Instead, the cards 
represent the petitioner's (1) lawyer's identification from the Bar Association of 
: (2) Professional Identity card from the of the 
and (3) identity card from the confirming the 
petitioner's license. The director requested evidence of the membership requirements, including the 
associations' constitution or by laws. In response to the RFE, the etitioner noted that the Brazilian Bar 
exam has a low passage rate, asserted that the re uires a difficult proficiency 
exam, inferred a requirement of outstanding achievements for the from the small 
number of members, and asserted that requires membership in the Brazilian Bar. 
In support of his assertions, the petitioner submitted (1) an article about a change in insurance law that 
does not mention any association's membership requirements; (2) requirements for registration as a 
including an examination; (3) an article noting 
that in December 2010, only 9.74 percent of applicants passed the Brazilian bar exam; (4) one page of 
the that does not address bar membership requirements; and (5) 
information from website affirming that the association is the largest membership association 
for Latin American and "perpetuates itself as a bulwark in defending the prerogatives of unrestricted 
Class Counsel." Finally, the petitioner submitted information about the Board of Directors oJ that 
discusses the board's mission , but does not suggest that it is an association with membership or discuss 
any membership requirements. 
At issue is not the number of associations of which the petitioner is a member, but the membership 
requirements of those associations. The petitioner has not submitted the associations ' constitution, 
bylaws or equivalent information confirming the membership requirements and selection process for 
these associations. With respect to the IBA, the petitioner only documented that he is a licensed 
actuary. A license is not a membership. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) and (E). Regardless, 
with respect to this license and the petitioner's accounting and bar memberships, these credentials are 
based on a professional proficiency examination . Demonstrating the minimum proficiency to practice 
in a field, even as the result of a competitive examination, is not an outstanding achievement in that 
field. 
With respect to the petitioner's elected position , on appeal, the petitioner asserts that only 36 members 
of the which has members, are elected to be a Counselor. As such, the 
petitioner asserts that being a Counselor requires outstanding achievements judged by recognized 
national and international experts. The record includes a letter and accompanying translation from the 
which states: "[the petitioner] was elected to 
the position of Effective Counselor of this for the period 1998/2001, having been 
sworn on 
January 5th 1998." While the letter confirms that the petitioner was a Counselor, the letter 
does not indicate that selection to the post required outstanding achievements or that membership is 
judged by national or international experts. Consequently, record does not contain evidence supporting 
the petitioner's claims. 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. 158, 165 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not satisfy the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall 
include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The petitioner submitted the following evidence in support of this criterion: 
1. A letter indicating the petitioner's presentation will be published on a consortium's web site; 
2. A copy of online comments made on www.time.com, which include the petitioner's comment; 
3. The first few pages of searches for the petitioner's name on Google and Bing; 
4. Various instances where the petitioner's name appears in a "Bibliography" section; 
5. An online document with no visible web address titled,' 
6. An online document from Google Translate with an incomplete title; and 
7. Online articles that the petitioner authored. 
The director requested evidence documenting that the materials appeared in professional or major trade 
ublications or other major media. In response, the petitioner submitted a 
While the petitioner asserted that the newspaper is "the biggest newspaper of Latin America," 
the information the petitioner submitted about the does not confirm that claim about the 
newspaper. First the information discusses the group's website and multiple publications, such as 
At issue is not the size of the but the circulation of the newspaper that carried the 
article, The director concluded the article was not about the petitioner. 
In support of his first motion, the petitioner submitted evidence that Time Magazine published his letter 
to the editor and other articles that mention him by name but are not about him. The director affirmed 
his initial determination, concluding that the evidence did not constitute published material about the 
petitioner in professional or major trade journals or other major media. On appeal, the petitioner asserts 
that the director erred because the petitioner has more "citations" than 
A review of the submitted evidence indicates that the director correctly determined that the petitioner 
did not meet the regulatory requirements for this criterion. The articles and letter to the editor are not 
published material about the petitioner. The regulation views authored articles as a separate evidentiary 
requirement from published materials. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The petitioner did not submit evidence of thousands of citations. Rather, he submitted the results from 
online searches for his name. A list of results from a search on an online search engine does not 
demonstrate that any one of the results constitutes published material that is about the petitioner and 
appears in a professional or major trade journal or other major media. The petitioner has not established 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
that the actual articles he submitted constitute published material about the petitioner in professional or 
major trade journals or other major media. 
The inclusion of the petitioner 's name in a bibliography that lists several references does not 
demonstrate that the article referencing the petitioner's work is about the petitioner. Thus, those 
bibliographies do not meet this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established his eligibility for this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The director determined that the petitioner established his eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
and the record supports the director's determination in this regard. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The director determined that the submitted evidence did not establish the petitioner's eligibility for this 
criterion. The petitioner submitted the following evidence in support of this criterion during these 
proceedings: 
1. Published material about 
2. A letter from 
3. A letter from 
4. A letter from 
,SA; 
5. A letter from 
Brazil; 
6. Email correspondence from 
7. Evidence that the petitioner authored four books and two book chapters; 
8. A printed webpage of articles published in an accounting class portal; 
9. Portions of selected bibliographies; 
10. Google scholar search results. 
Brazil; 
Governor, 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that "National Recognition Week" took place as a result of the 
petitioner 's win of the and was a subsequent effort to im lement the petitioner's 
manner of practice across Brazil. The published material about 
however, postdates the oetitioner's award by six years and does not mention the petitioner, the title of 
his project, or the As stated above, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Soffici, 22I&NDec. at 165 (citingMatterofTreasureCraftofCalifornia, 14I&NDec. at 190). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
While the petitioner asserts that he was the mentor and creator of the questions for the Proficiency 
Examination of certified public accountants in Brazil, the record does not support that claim. Mr. 
, in a letter addressed to the petitioner, thanks the petitioner for his "invaluable contribution 
made by you to the during our administration. This collaboration contributed 
significantly to the development and recognition of our profession." Mr. , however, makes no 
mention of the proficiency examination and does not explain the petitioner's role in rewriting that 
examination. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney 
General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
The letter from Mr. acknowledges the Governor's receipt of the petitioner's book and 
congratulates the petitioner on its publication. The two-sentence letter is akin to a constituent letter 
responding to an unsolicited submission and is not indicative of the petitioner's impact in his field. 
In addition, the letters and email correspondence from Mr. Mr. , and Dean 
are vague and any discussion of contributions is limited to the impact that the petitioner 
had on their specific organization or on a specific event. For instance, Mr. rites: 
We would like to reiterate our congratulations for your brilliant presentation, which 
caused a very positive impact on the participants, thanks to the quality and 
professionalism demonstrated by you, giving auditors the opportunity to recycle and 
extend their knowledge in the professional field, thus our goals have been met. 
solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
Regarding the petitioner's authorship of four books and two book chapters, the petitioner has not 
submitted supplemental evidence that indicates that the books or the book chapters impacted the field as 
a whole. See Visinscaia v. Beers, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 
2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not 
demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). Furthermore, the regulations contain a separate 
criterion regarding authorship of scholarly articles. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Therefore, the 
regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from authorship or scholarly 
articles absent evidence that the articles have had an impact indicative of a contribution of major 
significance. 
Similarly, the webpages and bibliographies do not demonstrate an impact on the petitioner's field as a 
whole. The list of reading material for a. class that appears on a web portal only demonstrates the 
applicability of those materials to a specific accounting class. There is no indication that the articles on 
the web portal were available outside the context of one accounting class. The petitioner has not 
explained how such limited access could impact the field as a whole. See Visinscaia, --- F. Supp. 
2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6. Furthermore, as noted above, the regulations contain a separate 
criterion regarding authorship of articles. The selected bibliographies that the petitioner submitted, 
which show that an item that the petitioner authored appears in the bibliography of a text, do not include 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
the information regarding the citing articles and some bear no indicia of publication. These printed 
pages from various bibliographies, because they provide no context, lack probative value. 
The Google Scholar results are not indicative of the number of citations to the petitioner's work. While 
the Google results are for the petitioner's full name in quotation marks, the Google Scholar results are 
for a limited portion of his name. Thus, the search provided results from other individuals who have a 
similar name, including an individual with ' in his name. Also, the results include all 
references to his name rather than simply those articles that cite the petitioner's articles, books, or 
chapters. Therefore, the results do not show a list of scholarly articles whose authors have relied upon 
and cited the petitioner's work. Moreover, they are in the aggregate and cannot demonstrate that any 
one of the petitioner's articles garnered widespread attention in the field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established his eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion and the record supports the director's 
conclusions regarding the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence under this criterion along with his Form I-140. The director 
determined in his decision that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of the regulation. The 
petitioner does not raise this issue on appeal. Therefore, the petitioner abandoned this claim. See 
Sepulveda v. US Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (111h Cir. 2005), citing United States v. 
Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 
WL 4711885, at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). · 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the 
alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation." In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical 
role is one in which the alien was responsible for the success or standing of the organization or 
establishment. Moreover, a role is essentially experience, and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(g)(1) provides that evidence of experience shall consist of letters from current or former 
employers . Thus, the petitioner's assertion that the evidence he submitted under this criterion is not 
from current or former employers does not support a finding that he submitted the requisite 
evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Regardless of whether the authors represent the petitioner's current or former employer, the content of 
the letters does not support the petitioner 's claim to meet this criterion. In support of this criterion, the 
petitioner claims he submitted letters from : (1) the President of the (2) the 
former regarding the appointment as a Judge at the Court of Tax; and (3) the 
Governor of As discussed above, the letter from Mr. of the 
does not identify a specific role the petitioner performed for the council and does 
not provide specific examples of the petitioner's impact on that organization. The letter from Mr. 
is not from the Governor of the but the head of his office, is two sentences 
long, and appears to be a response to the petitioner's unsolicited submission of his book. 
confirms the petitioner's appointment as "an effective 
member of the Mr. does not explain how that role fits 
within the overall hierarchy of the court or provide examples of the petitioner's impact on the court. 
Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner ' s burden of 
proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 
(2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Finally, Dr. asserts that the petitioner 
"performed a leading role for the as [the] Vice President of [the] 
J Dr. does not explain his direct knowledge of this 
position. As stated above , evidence of experience must be in the form of letters from the petitioner's 
current or former employers. 8 C.F.R § 204.5(g)(1). Moreover, Dr. does not describe the 
petitioner's duties. As stated above , merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does 
not satisfy the petitioner ' s burden of proof. !d. In addition, USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies the plain language requirements for 
this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to submit sufficient relevant , probative evidence to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international accla~ and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories , in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor " and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. " 8 C.F.R. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While we conclude that the evidence is 
not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of the field or 
sustained national or international acclaim, we need not explain that conclusion in a final merits 
determination? Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence. Id. at 1122. The petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
.-
3 As noted earlier, we maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). See also section 
103(a)(1) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 
8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I.,--&-N7 Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 
1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions).