dismissed EB-1A Case: Law

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service 
Administrative Appeals O ffice (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JUN 2 1 2013 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE : 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsid er or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Jj_ Otad nfA-_. 
f Ron Rosenberg 
~ Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas 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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability as a lawyer. 1 The director determined that the petitioner had not met 
the requisite criteria for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he received a major, internationally recognized award and that 
he meets the regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (vi) an (viii). For 
the reasons discussed below, the 
AAO will uphold the director's decision. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. --Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, 
arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the ·alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
Although not discussed by the director in his decision, the first issue to be addressed is whether the 
petitioner qualifies for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability based upon his profession as 
a lawyer. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
. denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
1 According to information on the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner was last admitted 
to the United States on October 25, 2006 as an F-1 nonimmigrant student. 
(b)(6)l 
I 
! 
l l 
l l 
l 
l ·l 
I 
l 
Page 3 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), ajj'd, 345 F.3d 683 (91h Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 
(3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The statute requires that the alien demonstrate extraordinary ability "in the sciences, arts, 
education, business, or athletics" and that the alien "seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability." See sections 203(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). On the Form I-140 petition, in Part 5, the petitioner listed 
his occupation as "Lawyer." In addition, under Part 6, "Basic information about the proposed 
employment ," the petitioner listed his job title as "Lawyer" and the nontechnical description of 
his job as "Practice of Law." 
As evidence that he intends to continue work in this area of expertise, the petitioner submitted 
the following: 
1. An April 9, 2009 certificate stating that the petitioner "was admitted to practice as an 
Attorney and Counselor of Law, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit" on October 20, 2008; 
2. Evidence of the petitioner's S.J.D. degree; 
3. A certificate from the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas stating 
that the petitioner "was duly admitted and qualified to practice as an Attorney in the 
District Court on ... October 14, 2009"; 
4. A certificate from the United States District Court, Nebraska stating that the 
petitioner "was duly admitted and qualified to practice as an Attorney in the District 
Court" on August 28, 2009; 
5. A statement from the petitioner indicating: "The [petitionerl has formed/incorporated 
his own legal practice, a professional corporation -
' 
' and has established presences in both the State of New York and the State of 
California"; 
6. A certificate from the State of New York Department of State, certifying that 
"The Law Offices of Professional Corporation was filed for in this 
Department " on July 24, 2009; 
7. A certification from the First Deputy Secretary of State, State of New York 
Department of State certifying that the Law Offices of Professional 
Corporation was filed for on July 24, 2009; 
8. A "Certificate of Status" from the State of California Secretary of State reflecting a 
registration date of August 27, 2009 for the Law Offices of 
Professional Corporation; 
9. A letter from the Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States stating that 
the petitioner was admitted to the Bar ofthe Court effective June 4, 2012; and 
10. A June 4, 2012 certificate stating that the petitioner was "duly admitted and qualified 
as an Attorney and Counselor of the Supreme Court of the United States." 
Thus, the record is clear that the petitioner intends to continue to work as a lawyer practicing law in 
the United States. The petitioner has not established that a lawyer engaged in the practice of law 
falls within the purview of"the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics." 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
The phrase "in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics" is not superfluous and, must 
be understood to have a specific meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 
51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 
2003). A qualified alien who is a member of the professions and who holds an advanced degree 
qualifies for an EB-2 immigrant visa. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(A). 
The practice of law is a profession for purposes of eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant visa. !d. 
Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(32). The practice of a profession is not pne of 
the fields within the EB-1 category. !d. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(l)(A). Congress specifically included members of the professions in sections 
203(b)(2)(A) and 203(b)(3)(A)(ii), and excluded them from section 203(b)(l)(A). If Congress 
had intended all aliens of extraordinary ability, regardless of their field, to qualify under section 
203(b)(l)(A), there would have been no purpose in including the phrase "in the sciences, arts, 
education, business, or athletics." As Congress did use that phrase, it can be presumed that there 
may be aliens of extraordinary ability, who enjoy sustained national or international acclaim, that 
are nevertheless ineligible for classification under section 203(b )(1 )(A) solely because their 
occupation does not fall within the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. To hold 
otherwise would render the clear language of the statute meaningless and undermine 
Congressional intent. The petitioner has not established that his profession and the employment he 
intends to pursue, fall within the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. Therefore, beyond 
the director's findings that the petitioner had not established his receipt of a major, internationally 
recognized award' and had not met at least three of the ten categories of evidence pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner has failed to establish his statutory eligibility 
for this visa classification. 
Regarding the findings of the director, 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 st 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, 580 F.3d 1030 (91h Cir. 2009) aff'd in 
part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the 
petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
evidentiary criterion.2 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court 
concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a 
subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." /d. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.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, the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner 
has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A One-time Achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) 
The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish sustained 
national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, specifically a major, 
internationally recognized award. 
The petitioner submitted an April 7, 2010 e-mail message from 
Registration Office, , stating: 
I have pleasure in informing you that you are allowed to follow the Directed Studies for the 
preparation of the Academy Diploma. 
In principle, I also accept temporary, your application for the Diploma itself. 
However, I will ask the director of studies to give me his/her opinion regard your 
participation to the Directed studies. 
Consequently, the final decision will be taken during your stay at the 
I would like to highlight the difficulty of this examination leading to a high level diploma 
issued sparingly. 
2 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
The petitioner also submitted his identification card for the 
reflecting a period of attendance from July 4- July 24, 2011. In addition, the petitioner submitted a 
Jul 2011 document from the entitled 
listing the petitioner as an 
examination candidate. While the petitioner appears to have been accepted to the 
in April 2010, the preceding documentation indicates that he attended the 
academy subsequent to the petition's May 14, 2010 filing date. Eligibility, however, must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 
1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 
1981 ), that users cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a 
petition." /d. at 176. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider diplomas or honors received by 
the petitioner after May 14, 2010 as evidence to establish his eligibility. 
The petitioner also submitted information about the history of the 
that states: 
Since its creation in 1923 with funding received from the _ in 
has occupied premises at the 
______ ----· . . . It is a centre for research and teaching in public and private 
international law, with the aim of further scientific and advanced studies of the legal 
aspects of international relations. 
* * * 
The well-known summer courses of the which have been organised 
from the very outset, take place over a period of six weeks: three weeks of public 
international law (in July) and three weeks of private international law (from the end of 
July until mid-August). Over a period of almost eighty years, thousands of students have 
been able to attend them. 
On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, the petitioner states: 
There were totall only eleven nominee rsicl and finalist rsic] worldwide for 
Also, since 1950 until today, 
there have only been 32 Americans and 3 Chinese ever awarded. (Also See Exhibit 1) 
Therefore, be a nominee [sic] and finalist worldwide for this famous award should be 
considered equate [sic] to a major, internationally recognized award. 
The petitioner's latter assertion is not persuasive. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) specifically requires a major, internationally recognized award, not a nomination or 
qualification as a finalist. The petitioner's appellate "Exhibit 1" lists numerous individuals who 
were "Awarded diplomas" by the but the source of the list is 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
not specifically identified. Regardless, the petitioner's name does not appear on the "Awarded 
diplomas" list and there is no documentary evidence demonstrating his receipt of an Academy 
diploma. The petitioner's appellate submission also includes a document entitled "Diploma 
Regulations" that states: 
Article 1 
A diploma of the is awarded to those students who 
already have a thorough knowledge of international law and pass the examinations 
referred to below, in accordance with the conditions laid down by these Regulations. 
Article 2 
Only those candidates appearing on the list drawn up for this purpose under the authority 
of the Curatorium of the Academy are admitted to sit for the diploma. 
Article 3 
No person may be listed as a candidate without satisfying both of the following 
conditions: 
• The candidate must have university qualifications or professional experience that, 
in the opinion of the Curatorium, are sufficient with regard both to the level of 
studies and to the range of knowledge required for the diploma 
• The candidate must also, through academic work or another form of activity, have 
demonstrated particular knowledge of international law. 
Article 4 
Candidates must submit to the Secretariat of the Academy in , before March 
1st, 0:00 hrs. ' time (GMT+ 1), their application file containing evidence of 
their qualifications and all other information required above in support of their 
application. 
Article 5 
An examination for the diploma is organised at the end of the two periods of courses, in 
private international law and in public international law. Directed studies are organised 
during each session with a view to assisting candidates in preparing for the diploma. 
Article 6 
The examinations consist of a written paper and an oral examination in the language 
(English or French) chosen by the candidate. Only those candidates who are declared 
admissible by the jury can sit the oral examination. 
Article 7 
The written paper, which covers the whole of private international law or public 
international law, depending upon the session, consists of a five-hour composition of both 
a theoretical and a practical nature. 
Article 8 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
Candidates who are declared by the jury to be admissible may sit the oral examination. 
This examination consists of questions covering the whole of private international law or 
public international law, depending upon the session. It should be noted that candidates 
from one session must have general knowledge of the subject of the other session. 
Questions may also relate to the courses that have been given during the session. 
Article 9 
The jury has absolute discretion to determine the relative importance of the various 
examinations and the number of diplomas that will be awarded. It takes into account the 
role played by candidates during the seminars. In exceptional cases it may award 
diplomas "cum laude". Candidates may not enter for the diploma examination more than 
once. 
Article 10 
The jury, which is established for each period and which includes if possible the lecturer 
who has given the General Course, must consist of at least four members. These may 
include the President and members of the Curatorium, the Secretary General of the 
Academy, the lecturers who have given courses during the session, and any other 
qualified person whose participation may be considered useful for the proper conduct of 
the examinations. The jury is presided by the President, the Vice-President or the 
Secretary General or, in their absence, by a member of the Curatorium. In the event of a 
tied vote, the president of the jury shall have a casting vote. 
Once again, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner had received a diploma of the 
at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. In addition, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's 
candidacy for the diploma was recognized beyond the _ at a 
level commensurate with a major, internationally recognized award. Regarding the information 
submitted from the US CIS need not rei y on self-promotional 
material. Cf., Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9) 
(concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine 
as to the magazine's status as major media). 
The petitioner's selection to attend summer courses at the . is 
evidence of his pursuit of further educational training in his field, not a major, internationally 
recognized award. Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of 
individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation pennitting 
eligibility based on a one-time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small 
handful of awards qualifying as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-
723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. 
Given that the House Report specifically 
cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time 
achievement, examples of one-time awards which enjoy major, international recognition may 
include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and an Olympic Medal. The regulation is 
consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement must be a major, 
internationally recognized award. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel Laureates, the 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
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. 
While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time achievement 
without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the 
award must be internationally recognized in the alien's field as one of the top awards in that field. 
In this instance, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his participation in summer courses at 
the _ _ is equivalent to a major, internationally recognized 
award. Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate evidence of a qualifying one-time 
achievement pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he earned a Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.) 
degree from . On appeal, the petitioner 
states: "As showed by the evidence on the record, average only 93 S.J.D. degrees were awarded per 
year in the whole United States from 1970- 2006." A doctoral degree is an academic qualification 
earned by completing specific advanced educational requirements, not a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. Academic 
study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. Significantly, this 
office has held, in a precedent decision involving a lesser classification than the one sought in this 
matter, that academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade point average, is not a 
specific prior achievement that establishes the alien 's ability to benefit the national interest. 
Matter of New York State Dep 't. ofTransp ., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 219, n.6 (Comm'r 1998). Thus, 
academic performance is not comparable to the awards criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) , designed to demonstrate an alien's eligibility for this more exclusive 
classification. 
The etitioner's appellate submission includes information about the 
S.J.D. program that states: 
Once a student is admitted, completion of the Program requires four essential steps. 
Applicants and admitted students should be aware however, that admission to the 
Program is not a guarantee that the admitted student will earn the SJD degree. In fact, 
some admitted students never obtain the degree. Success requires hard work and total 
commitment on the part of the student. A successful doctoral dissertation demonstrates 
the candidate's ability to conduct extensive, independent research on a specific topic 
within his or her chosen field and to present the results of such research in a way that 
makes a substantive contribution to the field. Originality on the part of the student is 
3 
On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. Therefor e, the AAO has not considered whether the petitioner meets the remaining categories of evidence. 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
imperative. An admitted student who fails to demonstrate satisfactory progress at any 
stage of the Program can be administratively withdrawn from the Program. 
Consideration for the petitioner's S.J.D. degree was limited to students enrolled in the law 
program at _ Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit 
evidence demonstrating the national or international recognition of his academic accomplishment. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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 instance, there is no documentary 
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's S.J.D. degree from 
was recognized beyond his alma mater at a level commensurate 
with a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires qualifying 
"prizes or awards" in the plural. The 
use of the plural is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of 
the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single 
high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it 
expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience 
must be in the form of "letter( s ). " Thus, the AAO must conclude that the plural in the remaining 
regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld USC IS' ability 
to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See 
Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); 
Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) 
(upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" 
foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a 
combination of academic credentials). Therefore, even if the petitioner were to establish that his 
S.J.D. degree meets the elements of this regulatory 
criterion, which he has not, the plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of more than one qualifying prize 
or award. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory 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. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted an April 7, 2010 e-mail message from 
informing 
the petitioner that he was "allowed to follow the Directed Studies for the preparation of the 
Academy Diploma." The petitioner submitted his identification card for the 
reflecting a period of attendance from July 4 -July 24, 2011. In addition, the 
petitioner submitted a July 2011 document from the entitled 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
listing the 
petitioner as an examination candidate. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
As showed by the evidence on the record, the [petitioner] is the nominee and finalist for The 
; 2011 High-Level Diploma Award (Public 
International Law). 
There were totally only eleven nominee [sic] and finalist [sic] worldwide for The 
High-Level Diploma Award. Also, since 1950 until today, 
there have only been ever awarded. 
While the petitioner appears to have been accepted to the r m 
April 2010, the preceding documentation indicates that he attended the academy subsequent to 
the petition's May 14, 2010 filing date. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established 
at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. In 
addition, there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner received a diploma of the 
_ Regardless, there is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner's candidacy for a diploma of the equates to 
membership in an association in the field requiring outstanding achievements of its members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts. 
The petitioner further states: 
Please consider all the nominee and finalist together as an "association" and consider be 
[sic] selected to become a nominee and finalist as a "membership." As demonstrated by 
the evidence on the record, . 
. . it is clear that the "association" requires outstanding 
achievements of their "members" and the "membership" eligibility is judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their field. 
* 
* * 
The evidence . . should be accepted as "comparable" evidence pursuant to 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that evidence of sustained national or 
international acclaim "shall" include evidence of a one-time achievement or evidence of at least 
three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
The ten categories in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion 
will apply to every occupation. For example, the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
implicitly applies to the visual arts, and the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) expressly 
applies to the performing arts. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) provides "[i]f the above 
standards do not readily apply to the [petitioner's] occupation, the petitioner may submit 
comparable evidence to establish the [petitioner's] eligibility." It is clear from the use of the 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
word "shall" in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) that the rule, not the exception, is that the petitioner must 
submit evidence to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria. Thus, it is the petitioner's 
burden to explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to his occupation and 
how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). 
As previously discussed, the petitioner's field of endeavor as an attorney does not fall within the 
purview of section 203(b )(l)(A)(i). However, even if the AAO were to conclude that an alien in 
this field of endeavor was within the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics, to be 
successful regarding a comparable evidence argument, the petitioner must establish that 
eligibility as a lawyer cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner has submitted evidence that specifically addressed more 
than half of the categories of evidence set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Where an alien is simply unable to satisfy the plain language requirements of at least three 
categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not 
allow for the submission of comparable evidence. The petitioner's appellate brief does not 
explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to his occupation. For instance, the 
petitioner has not established that his occupation is one in which there are no associations which 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts or that the high salary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) is not applicable 
to lawyers. 
Even if the petitioner demonstrated that he was eligible for the provisions of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), which he did not, the petitioner failed to establish that his candidacy for a 
diploma of the is comparable to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) that requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's membership in 
associations in the field for which is classification is sought, which require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields." As previously discussed, the petitioner's appellate submission includes a 
document entitled "Diploma Regulations" 
that states: 
Article 1 
A diploma of the is awarded to those students who 
already have a thorough knowledge of international law and pass the examinations 
referred to below, in accordance with the conditions laid down by these Regulations. 
Article 2 
Only those candidates appearing on the list drawn up for this purpose under the authority 
of the Curatorium of the Academy are admitted to sit for the diploma. 
Article 3 
No person may be listed as a candidate without satisfying both of the following 
conditions: 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
• The candidate must have university qualifications or professional experience that, 
in the opinion of the Curatorium, are sufficient with regard both to the level of 
studies and to the range of knowledge required for the diploma 
• The candidate must also, through academic work or another form of activity, have 
demonstrated particular knowledge of international law. 
Even if the petitioner demonstrated that he had received a diploma of the 
at the time of filing, which he has not, the evidence submitted by the pehhoner 
as "comparable," specifically the petitioner's candidacy for a diploma of the 
is not of the same caliber as that required by the regulation. For instance, 
having a thorough knowledge of international law and passing required examinations are not 
commensurate with the "outstanding achievements" required by the regulation. In addition, 
regarding the petitioner's candidacy for a diploma of the • 
the petitioner has not established that having "university qualifications or professional 
experience that, in the opinion of the Curatorium, are sufficient with regard both to the level of 
studies and to the range of knowledge required for the diploma" and that demonstrating "through 
academic work or another form of activity ... particular knowledge of international law" equate 
to "outstanding achievements." The evidence submitted by the petitioner as "comparable," 
s ecifically the petitioner's candidacy for a diploma of the l 
, is not of the same caliber as that required by the regulation. 
The petitioner continues: 
Also, as showed by the evidence on the record, the [petitioner] has been invited and 
continuing serving [sic] on the New York State annual "Outstanding Young Lawyer 
(OYL) Award" (one winner per year) Selection Committee in the past years. 
Please consider the Selection Committee as an "association" and consider be [sic] invited 
to and continuing serving [sic] on the Selection Committee as a "membership." As 
demonstrated by the evidence on the record, the invitation is limited and only open to 
current Executive Committee members of the New York State Bar Association Young 
Lawyers Section. In order to become an Executive Committee member, the candidate 
needs to go through a whole nomination and selection process . . . , which requires 
outstanding achievements and the eligibility to be judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their field. 
The evidence . 
§ 204.5(h)(4). 
* * * 
should be accepted as "comparable" evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
The petitioner submitted an October 25, 2012 e-mail from 
stating: "I am currently in the process of working on the call for submissions for the 2013 
Outstanding Young Lawyer (OYL) Award, to be presented in January at the NYSBA Annual 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
Meeting in NYC. I am looking for volunteers to serve on the OYL Selection Committee." The 
petitioner also submitted his October 26, 2012 e-mail response to l : "Thank 
you for the invite. I would be interested in serving on the selection committee again, as I also 
did last year." The petitioner's invitation and acceptance to the OYL Selection Committee post­
date the petition's May 14, 2010 filing date. As previously discussed, eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's service on the OYL Selection 
Committee in 2011 and 2012 as evidence to establish his eligibility. Regardless, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner's service on the OYL Selection Committee equates to 
membership in an association in the field requiring outstanding achievements of its members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts. Moreover , even if the petitioner 
demonstrated that he was eligible for the provisions of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4), 
which he clearly did not, the petitioner failed to establish that his service on the OYL Selection 
Committee is comparable to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Specifically, there is no 
documentary evidence showing that acceptance to the OYL Selection Committee required 
outstanding achievements as judged recognized national or international experts in the field. The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner regarding the petitioner 's service on the OYL Selection 
Committee as being comparable to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) is not 
commensurate with the plain language of the regulation. 
The petitioner further states: 
The [petitioner] has been continually invited in the past years to join the prestigious 
annual "ABA [American Bar Association] Day at the UN [United Nations]" Delegation. 
* * * 
Please consider the "ABA Day at the UN" Delegation as an "association" and consider be 
[sic] invited to and being a member of the Delegation as "membership." As 
demonstrated by the evidence, it is clear the "association" requires outstanding 
achievements of their [sic] members and the membership eligibility is judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their field. 
The evidence is "applicable " to meet the criterion, and should be accepted as 
"comparable" evidence pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(4). 
The petitioner submits the following: 
1. A January 19, 2011 letter from Chair, Section of International Law, 
ABA, inviting ABA officers, section chairs, leadership, council participants, and 
guests "to participate in the annual visit of the leadership of the American Bar 
Association to the United Nations" (ABA Day at the UN) that took place on April 11, 
2011; 
(b)(6)
Page 15 
2. An April 4, 2011 memorandum to "Members of the ABA Delegation to the United 
Nations" providing information about ABA Day at the UN scheduled for April 11, 
2011; 
3. A January 30, 2012 e-mail from International Projects 
Coordinator, stating: 
"Dear UN Day Invitee - Please find attached a letter from ABA Section of 
International Law Chair inviting you to participate in the ABA Day at the 
United Nations Monday, April16, 2012. Registration is due by Monday, Apri12"; 
4. A January 30, 2012 letter from 
ABA, inviting ABA officers, section chairs, leadership, board members, council 
participants, and guests to participate in the ABA Day at the UN that took place on 
April 16, 2012; 
5. An October 29, 2012 e-mail from "ABA International" to the petitioner reminding 
him to "Save the Date" for ABA Day at the UN on April29, 2013; and 
6. A February 11, 2013 letter from 
ABA, inviting ABA officers, section chairs, leadership, board members, council 
participants, and guests to participate in the ABA Day at the UN that took place on 
April 29, 2013. 
Items 1 
- 4 and 6 do not specifically identify the petitioner as a delegation participant or a 
prospective delegation participant. In addition, the petitioner's purported selection and 
participation as a delegate attending ABA Day at the UN in 2011, 2012, and 2013 post-date the 
petition's May 14, 2010 filing date. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at 
the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's purported membership on the ABA Day 
at the UN delegation in 2011, 2012, and 2013 as evidence to establish his eligibility. Regardless, 
there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's participation in this annual event open to 
numerous ABA members equates to membership in an association in the field requiring 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts. Moreover, even if the petitioner demonstrated that he was eligible for the provisions of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), which he clearly did not, the petitioner failed to establish 
that his selection for the ABA Day at the UN delegation is comparable to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Specifically, there is no documentary evidence showing that 
participation in the ABA Day at the UN required outstanding achievements as judged recognized 
national or international experts in the field. Accordingly, the evidence submitted by the 
petitioner as comparable to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) is not of the same caliber 
as the evidence required by the plain language of the regulation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
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. 
(b)(6)
Page 16 
The petitioner submitted a three-sentence article that he authored in the 
issue of the " , "a publication of the International Section of 
the announcing his intention to publish his doctoral 
dissertation. This article in the "Member News" section constitutes material written by the 
petitioner about his own work rather than published material about the petitioner himself. Thus, 
the article does not meet the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The regulations include a separate criterion for authorship of scholarly articles at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Because separate criteria exist for published material about the alien 
and authorship of scholarly articles, these criteria cannot be viewed as being interchangeable. To 
hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the 
regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. The AAO will fully 
address the petitioner's authorship of scholarly articles under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The petitioner also submitted an article entitled "ILA 201 0" in the . 
of the _ The six -sentence article, appearing on page 44 in 
the "Member News" section, comments on the petitioner 's presentation at the 741h Biennial 
Conference of the International Law Association in August 2010. The author of the article was 
not identified as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Regardless, the preceding article post-dates the petition's May 14, 2010 filing date. As 
previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider the as evidence to 
establish the petitioner 's eligibility. 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires published 
material about the alien "in professional or major trade publications or other major media" in the 
plural. As previously discussed, the use of the plural is consistent with the statutory requirement 
for extensive evidence. Section 203(b )(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Therefore, even if the petitioner 
were to establish that the material in meets the elements of 
~ 
this regulatory criterion, which he has not, qualifying material limited to only one publication does 
not meet the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory 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. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he judged the ' round of the 
ABA Law Student Division National Appellate Advocacy Competition in March 2010. 
Accordingly, petitioner has established that he meets the plain language requirements of this 
regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 17 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory 
criterion. The plain language ofthe regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence 
of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field." [Emphasis added.] Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see 
whether it rises to the level of original scholarly contributions "of major significance in the 
field." The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. 
Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., at 31 quoted inAPWU v. Potter at 626. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that his "receipt of a S.J.D. degree itself ... proved his 
significant original contribution to the field of law." As previously discussed, the petitioner's 
appellate submission includes information about the 
S.J.D. program that states: 
A successful doctoral dissertation demonstrates the candidate's ability to conduct 
extensive, independent research on a specific topic within his or her chosen field and to 
present the results of such research in a way that makes a substantive contribution to the 
field. Originality on the part of the student is imperative. 
The AAO cannot conclude that a "substantive contribution to the field" rises to the level of a 
"contribution of major significance in the field." In this instance, there is no documentary 
evidence showing that the petitioner's original work was of major significance to the field. 
The petitioner points to the aforementioned articles in J • and 
the presentation of his research work at the Biennial Conference of the International Law 
Association in August : as evidence that supports his eligibility. The article in the Winter 
and the petitioner's 
presentation at the Biennial Conference of the International Law Association in _ 
post-date the petition's May 14, 2010 filing date. Once again, eligibility must be established at 
the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the Winter 2010 article and the August 2010 
presentation as evidence to establish the petitioner's eligibility. 
There is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's S.J.D. research has been heavily 
cited by independent legal scholars, of major influence in the field of international law, or 
otherwise indicative of scholarly contributions of major significance in the field. While the 
petitioner's S.J.D. research was no doubt of some value, it can be argued that any research must 
be shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scholarly community. Any S.J.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful information to the 
pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every legal scholar who performs original research 
that adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of "major 
significance" to the field as a whole. Publications and presentations are not sufficient evidence 
(b)(6)
Page 18 
under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036. In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the 
AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of 
major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. Thus, there is no presumption that every published article 
or conference presentation is a contribution of major significance; rather, the petitioner must 
document the actual impact of his article or presentation. Without additional, specific evidence 
showing that the petitioner's original work has been unusually influential, widely applied 
throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, the 
AAO cannot conclude that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted a three-sentence "Member News" article that he 
authored in the announcing his 
intention to publish his doctoral dissertation. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field." 
[Emphasis added.] Generally, scholarly articles are written by and for experts in a particular 
field of study, are peer-reviewed, and contain references to sources used in the articles. In this 
instance, the record lacks evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's "Member News" 
announcement was peer-reviewed, contains any references to sources, or otherwise equates to a 
"scholarly" article. In addition, the petitioner's appellate brief does not assert that his Winter 
~ the elements of this criterion. 
The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 
F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 
4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims found to be abandoned as he 
failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted three scholarly articles 
that he authored in 
The preceding articles were published subsequent to the 
petition's May 14, 2010 filing date. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at 
the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N at 49. 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider scholarly articles published by the petitioner after May 
14, 2010 as evidence to establish his eligibility. 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires 
authorship of scholarly articles "in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media" in the plural. Once again, the use of the plural is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Therefore, even if the 
petitioner were to establish that his three-sentence announcement in the 
meets the elements of this regulatory criterion, which he has 
not, qualifying material limited to only one publication does not meet the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 19 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he has performed in a leading or critical role for the 
American Bar Association (ABA) and the New York City Bar Association (NYCBA). The 
record adequately demonstrates that the ABA and the NYCBA have a distinguished reputation. 
The next issue to be determined is whether the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical 
role for the ABA and NYCBA. In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a 
critical role is one in which the alien is responsible for the success or standing of the organization. 
The petitioner asserts that he is a Council Member and Young Lawyers Division Representative 
for the ABA's Section of International Law. With regard to his role for the ABA, the petitioner 
submitted the following: 
1. A June 11, 2009 letter from the 
inviting the petitioner as an ABA member "to participate in the United Nations 
Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on 
Development" (June 24 - 26, 2009) and to make presentations at the Civil Society 
Forum; 
2. A November 2, 2009 letter from _ 
American Bar Association, stating: "Please be advised that [the 
petitioner] would like to represent the American Bar Association as an observer at the 
United Nations Dialogue on Financing for Development conference being held on 
November 23-24, 2009 at the United Nations in New York City"; 
3. A November 2, 2009 letter from _ ·. stating: "Please be advised that 
[the petitioner] would like to represent the American Bar Association as an observer 
at the U.N. Security Council- 'Open Debates' Meeting on the topic of the Protection 
of Civilians in Armed Conflict being held on November 11, 2009 at the United 
Nations in New York City"; and 
4. A directory identifying the petitioner as the " 
for the ABA's Section oflnternational Law. 
There is no evidence showing that the petitioner's participation in the United Nations 
"Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development," his 
representation of the ABA "as an observer" at United Nation's meetings, and his role as a 
Council Member and for the ABA's Section of 
International Law was leading or critical to the ABA as a whole. In addition, with regard to the 
petitioner's role as a Council Member and · (item 4 
above) for the ABA's Section of International Law, there is no evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner held those appointments at the time of filing the petition on May 14, 2010. As 
previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not 
(b)(6)
Page 20 
consider roles performed by the petitioner after May 14, 2010 as evidence to establish his 
eligibility. Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit evidence (such as letters of support from top 
officers of the ABA) explaining how his role was leading or critical to the association as a whole. 
While the petitioner submitted a directory for the ABA's Section of International Law, there is 
no organizational chart or other evidence documenting where the petitioner's position fell within the 
general hierarchy of the entire ABA. The submitted evidence does not demonstrate how the 
petitioner's role differentiated him from his section's numerous other council members, division 
chairs, and liaisons, or from the ABA's executive leadership. The documentation submitted by the 
petitioner does not differentiate him from the ABA's other officers, delegates, and council members 
so as to demonstrate his leading role, and fails establish that he was responsible for the ABA' s 
success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of"critical role." 
Regarding his role for the NYCBA, the petitioner submitted the following: 
1. A February 2, 2010 letter from the requesting a 
UN Annual Pass for herself "as Chief Administrative Officer," for as 
"New York Main Representative," and for the petitioner and two others as "New 
York Additional Representative"; 
2. A December 21, 2010 letter from the requesting a 
UN Annual Grounds Pass for herself "as Executive Director/Chief Administrative 
Officer," for as "New York Main Representative," for 
' and for the petitioner and two others as "New York 
Additional Representative"; 
3. A December 23, 2011letter from the requesting a 
UN Annual Grounds Pass for herself "as Executive Director/Chief Administrative 
Officer," for as "New York Main Representative," and for the 
petitioner and three others as "New York Additional Representative"; 
4. A document from the United Nations Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) 
Branch providing information about "Observers to the General High-Level Plenary 
Meetings, 20-22 September 2010" and stating that representatives of NGOs "can be 
issued a secondary pass with access to the fourth floor balcony viewing gallery in the 
General Assembly hall"; 
5. Three "4th Balcony Only" observer passes for the NGO General Assembly Hall dated 
"20 SEP '1 0," "24 SEP '11 ," and "25 SEP '12"; and 
6. A December 30, 2010 United Nations identification card. 
The three letters from the (items 1 
- 3 above) fail to explain 
how petitioner's role as one of multiple "additional representatives" of the NYCBA at a small 
number of United Nations meetings was leading or critical to the NYCBA as a whole. In 
addition, with regard to items 2 - 6 above, this evidence post-dates the filing of the petition. 
Once again, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b )(1), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider these items as 
evidence to establish the petitioner's eligibility. The documentation submitted by the petitioner 
does not differentiate him from the NYCBA' s other officers and representatives so as to 
(b)(6)
Page 21 
demonstrate his leading role, and fails establish that he was responsible for the NYCBA's success or 
standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "critical role." 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
C. Summary 
The petitioner has not demonstrated his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, and 
has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary 
categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: ( 1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need 
not explain that conclusion in a final merits determination. 4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. 
!d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
4 
The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). ln any future proceeding , the AAO mainta i~s 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)(I)(ii). See also section 103(a)(l) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March I, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R . 
§ 103.l(f)(3)(iii) (2003) ; Matter of Aurelio, 19 l&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USC IS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).