dismissed EB-1A Case: Management Consultant

identifying data deleted to 
prevent C!t;<;,:y lnwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PuBUCCOpy 
DATE: JAN 25 201tFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section Z03(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision. or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B. Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fec of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
T\!ank you, .. 
Perry Rhew' , 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis .. gov 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on November 16, 2009, 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 management consultant. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive 
documentation of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 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. Absent the receipt of such 
an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.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 claims that he received a one-time achievement and meets at least three 
of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
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 
Page 3 
(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 10i 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. and 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate his or her 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 
following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) 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; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, In 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
Page 4 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
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 the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' 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." Id. 
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)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both 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," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(2), and "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)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A)(i). 
Id.atI119. 
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 reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
[ 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). 
Page 5 
II. Translations 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b) provides in pertinent part: 
(3) Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she 
is compe tent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a single certified translation; however it is unclear which 
documents, if any, to which the certification pertains. The submission of a single translation 
certification that does not identify the document or documents it purportedly accompanies does not 
meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § l03.2(b )(3). 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) specifically requires a "full English language 
translation." However, the petitioner submitted partial translations for the several of his foreign 
language documents. 
Finally, the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted several documents without 
any English language translations, let alone fully certified translations. Because the petitioner failed 
to comply with the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3), the AAO cannot determine whether the 
evidence supports the petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be 
accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
III. Analysis 
A. One-Time Achievement 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(8), counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for a one-time achievement based on his 
receipt of the Specifically, counsel claimed: 
~e petitioner 1 received the award of 
__ by The Bizz Awards. This award is organized by the World 
Confederation of Businesses who promotes public interest in the education and 
recognition of elite managers, leaders and executives in corporations and 
professional service firms worldwide. Since 2004, has been 
committed to providing the largest elite business network and development tools to 
firms. Every yea~organizes the~wards, and exclusive honor 
that distinguishes and celebrates proven business excellence. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted the front cover for a "Memory Book" 
photograph of a medal reflecting a 
a certificate reflecting that the petitioner was conferred 
and photographs from the ceremony. However, in the director's decision, he 
Page 6 
detennined that the petitioner failed to submit any evidence for a one-time achievement and did not 
address the petitioner's claim of eligibility. On appeal, the AAO will review the petitioner's 
documentary evidence to detennine if it is sufficient to meet the one-time achievement requirement. 
See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, affd, 345 F.3d at 683; 
see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de 
novo basis). 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted screenshots and 
reflecting that The World Confederation of Business created and the screenshots 
reflected the mission, vision, and history, as well as the selection criteria for the awards. However, 
based on a review of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, he failed to establish 
that his from The equates to a one-time 
achievement pursuant to of the .R. § 204.5(h)(3). 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 (most relevant for athletics) 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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 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. 
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 global in scope and internationally rec~en's field as one of the top 
awards in that field. The AAO is not persuaded that~ is remotely comparable to 
such major, internationally recognized awards as the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, or an 
Olympic Medal. The . evidence beyond the 
self-promotional websites of to demonstrate that The 
~ward is a major, internationally recognized award. See Braga v. Paulo!>; No. CV 06 5105 
SJO (C. D. CA July 6,2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (conduding 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). Th~Award will be further addressed below in the AAO's discussion of a 
lesser national or international prize or award for excellence pursuant the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Page 7 
The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under the regulation at 
? 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). -
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this 
criterion based on the petitioner's ~Magazine as one of the 10 most 
successful managers in Colombia in __ as well as being named as one the 
100 most important businessmen in an anniversary edition of the magazine. The plain language 
of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt of 
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor." Moreover, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for every element of 
this criterion. Not only must the petitioner demonstrate his receipt of prizes and awards, he must 
also demonstrate that those prizes and awards are nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. In other words, the petitioner must establish that his prizes 
and awards are recognized nationally or internationally for excellence in the field beyond the 
awarding entities. Based on a review of the record of proceeding, the AAO must withdraw the 
findings of the director for this criterion. 
While the petitioner submitted sufficient doc~emonstrating that he was 
named one of the top managers in Colombia in __ by Gerente Magazine, the 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence beyond Gerente Magazine to establish that 
such selections are nationally or internationally recognized or awards for excellence in the 
both of whom briefly 
described why the petitioner was selected and provided a little background information about the 
pUblication. However, the petitioner failed to submit any independent, objective evidence to 
reflect that the selections are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence beyond 
Gerente Magazine. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CY 06 5105 SJO (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). 
as previously discussed, the 
self-promotional web sites from 
independent documentary evidence establishing that 
or internationally for excellence in the field. 
Moreover, the record of proceeding reflects that the ~tificates from the 
Public Utility Services in Colombia to __ "In recognition to 
Management skills" As the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 8 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt" of prizes or awards, the AAO 
cannot conclude that awards that were not specifically presented to the petitioner are tantamount 
to his receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized awards. It cannot suffice that the 
petitioner was one member of a large group that earned collective recognition. Furthermore, the 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing that the certificates are 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires 
"[ d]ocumentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." Merely submitting documentation of the 
petitioner's receipt of prizes or awards is insufficient to meet every element of this criterion 
without documentation demonstrating that the petitioner's prizes or awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field. In the case here, t~d to 
establish that his selections from Gerente Magazine and award from the ~ are 
nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. As such, the 
AAO withdraws the decision of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien '.I' membership in associations in the field jrJr which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. A 
review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion 
based on his membership with the Colombian Association for Industrial and Personal Relations 
(ACRIP) and his participation with the Harvard Business School Publishing (HBSP). The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 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." In order to demonstrate that membership in an association 
meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding achievement 
as an essential condition for admission to membership. Membership requirements based on 
employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test 
scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of 
dues do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue 
here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
Regarding ACRIP, in response to the director's request for additional evidence pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8), the petitioner submitted a single letter from Hernan 
Valderrama, President of the Board of Directors for ACRIP, who stated that "ACRIP is a trade 
union and professional organization of deprived right [sic], without profit intention, that groups 
the companies, public and private, through their workers of human management." In addition, 
Page 9 
indicated the history and mission of ACRIP, as w~ that the 
llllUlllel was a member of ACRIP from 1987 to 2004. However, __ failed to 
indicate that outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or inter~ 
in their disciplines or fields, are required for membership with ACRIP. In fact, _ 
failed to discuss any membership requirements for ACRIP. 
~~~ !i!:!!m~ag:e translation of a letter from 
that failed to comply with the 
regulation at 8 CF.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Nonetheless, the indicated that the 
petitioner participated as a member of the national board from and the petitioner 
"was elected as he was considered as one of the few Professionals of Human ResOluCl~s that has 
attain~ terms of knowledge on the subject." Similar 
letter,~ letter failed to indicate that outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or internati~ disciplines or fields, are required for 
membership with ACRIP. While __ briefly described why the petitioner was 
elected to serve on the national board, there is no indication that outstanding achievements are 
essential to membership with ACRIP. 
Moreover, the petitioner submitted a screens hot from However, the 
petitioner submitted an uncertified translation of the screens hot that is lengthier than the actual 
screenshot. Specifically, the screenshot contains six paragraphs with a partial seventh paragraph. 
In contrast, the uncertified translation reflects 20 paragraphs. Notwithstanding, the uncertified 
translation provides no evidence of the membership requirements for ACRIP; instead the 
uncertified translation indicates the background, history, and mission of ACRIP. As the 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence that reflects the membership requirements 
for ACRIP, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts, are required for membership with ACRIP consistent 
with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Regarding HBSP, in response to the director's request for additional evidence pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 CF.R. § 103.2(b)(8), the petitioner submitted a single certificate reflecting that 
the petitioner is an HBSP's ManagerMentor PLUS. On appeal, the petitioner submitted 
screenshots frorn HBSP's website reflecting promotional material for HBSP's e-Learning 
programs, including an uncertified translation of HBSP's ManagerMentor PLUS program. In 
addition, the petitioner submitted a business card that listed himself as a "Management 
Consultant" for HBSP. While the petitioner completed HBSP's ManagerMentor PLUS program, 
the documentary evidence fails to reflect any membership requirements for HBSP, so as to 
establish that outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields, are required for membership with HBSP. There is no 
evidence, for example, of the selection criteria to participate in HBSP's programs and if the 
selection is made by recognized national or international experts. The petitioner failed to 
establish that HBSP meets the elements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
As discussed, the petitioner cannot meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) by simply submitting documentary evidence reflecting his memberships with 
Page 10 
aSSOCIatIOns. It is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for every element of this 
criterion. In this case, the petitioner failed to establish that his memberships with any of the 
associations require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which 
classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessary translation. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires 
"[p ]ublished 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." In general, in 
order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, 
as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.] Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that "[ s ]uch evidence shall include the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessary translation." 
At the initial filing of the petition, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on the 
previously mentioned material from Gerente Magazine. Specifically, the petitioner submitted 
the following documentation: 
1. 
2. 
3. 
~f an extract of an article entitled, 
~ May 2000, unidentified author; 
A partial translation of an extract of an article entitled, "Managers of 
Human Resources," September 2002, unidentified author; and 
A partial translation of an extract of an article entitled, "Managers of 
Human Resources," 2003, unidentified author. 
As the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requires that "[a]ny document containing foreign 
language submitted to USeIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation," the 
J Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 11 
petitioner's submission of partial translations fail to comply with the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§103.2(b)(3). As such, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this 
proceeding. Moreover, the petitioner failed to include the author for any of the articles as 
required pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Notwithstanding, the petitioner 
provided translations of portions of the articles that mentioned him. It appears that while the 
articles mentioned the petitioner, the articles are not primarily about him relating to his work. 
Instead, the articles are about brief snippets about numerous managers in which the petitioner 
was mentioned as one of them along with 10 or 100 others. Purthermore, the petitioner failed to 
submit any independent, objective evidence establishing that Gerente Magazine is a professional 
or major trade publication or other major media. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO 
(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). 
for this criterion based on the posting of his work on 
Specifically, the petitioner stated that "[a]ll of [his] 
mnlgs, wo,rkl,hclps or conferences are edited and published in the internet portal 
and submitted uncertified translations of screenshots from the 
who stated that the petitioner "has a strateglc 
company Outsourcing Corporate Management 
2000, and that his conferences, articles and interviews are available to our subscribers." 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published 
material be "about" the petitioner relating to his work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Compare 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers or professors 
pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Act, which only requires published material about the 
alien's work. Material authored by the petitioner is not published material about the petitioner 
relating to his work. Regardless, the petitioner failed to include the title and date for any of the 
material as required pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), as well as evidence 
establishing that the website is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
The AAO notes that the petitioner submitted several articles that were posted on the Internet. 
The AAO is not persuaded that postings on the Internet from a printed publication or from an 
organization are automatically considered major media. The petitioner failed to submit 
independent, objective evidence establishing that the website is considered major media. In 
today's world, many organizations, businesses, and resources, regardless of size and distribution, 
post on the Internet. To ignore this reality would be to render the "major media" requirement 
meaningless. However, the AAO is not persuaded that international accessibility by itself is a 
realistic indicator of whether a given website is "major media." 
As discussed above, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires 
"[p ]ublished 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." In this case, 
the petitioner's documentary evidence fails to ret1eet published material about him relating to his 
work in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Page 12 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. The 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence 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." A review of the record of 
proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentation establishing that he 
meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Therefore, the AAO 
withdraws the findings of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets the plain language of the regulation for 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
A review of the record of proceeding fails to reflect that the petitioner claimed eligibility for this 
criterion either at the initial filing of the petition or in response to the director's request for 
additional evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8). However, on appeal, the 
petitioner is now claiming eligibility for this criterion. As such, the director could not have erred 
in his decision as the petitioner is only claiming eligibility for this criterion for the first time on 
appeal. 
The plain language of the 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." Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level 
of original business-related 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., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3'" Cir. 1995) quoted in APWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 
(20d Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
On appeal, the petitioner claims: 
My business relation contribution, with personal authorship constitutes a method 
or academic model with a high degree of technical development and management 
that drives organizations to excellence. Results in the improvement in process 
and workers safety, improve productivity of the organization by reducing costs, 
improving customer service with added values and generating huge profits for 
organizations, quality of management in all areas of the company and all its 
Page 13 
processes, improved identity and corporate image and excellence in the welfare 
and development of company employees, 
* * * 
With the purpose of providing evidence of the business model of my authorship I 
annex the Power Point format postulate model for the "Contractor Management 
Model" as academic, business related contribution. 
The petitioner submitted a screenshot that he claimed was a "Power Point presentation snapshot 
of the 'Contractor Management Model for Strategic Alignment,'" however the petitioner failed 
to submit an English language translation, let alone a certified English language translation as 
required pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). As such, the petitioner failed to 
support his assertions on appeal. Going on record·without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Saffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
stated: 
~ot;t;An.o. submitted an uncertified translation of a letter from 
During [the petitioner's] time of service for _, he contributed with his 
knowledge, skills and abilities in the area of Human Resources Management. He 
led the cultural transformation processes and participated, along with the 
executive team, in the Union related situation mitigation through the modification 
to the labor contract agreement with the Unions. 
Likewise, [the petitioner] designed a model of strategic ali.gmnelat (t:::011tnlctC)r 
Management Model) with the objective of improving 
service provider's quality standards and prevent labor liabilities which were taken 
to the company's headquarters in United States, Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, 
Ecuador, Panama and Spain, allowing great investments in benefit of our client. 
letter only indicates the petitioner's contributions to _rather 
As the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
requires that the petitioner's original contributions be "of major significance in the field 
[emphasis added]," the submission of a single letter that briefly reflects the petitioner's 
contributions to a sole company is insufficient to meet all of the elements for this criterion. 
Regardless, letter fails to indicate the impact or influence of the 
petitioner's work at beyond simply indica~rticipation and 
involvement in projects with the company. For example, __ stated that the 
petitioner "led the cultural transformation process" and "designed a model of strategic 
alignment" but failed to explain the significance of these projects to __ let alone to the 
-Page 14 
field as a whole. Moreover, while indicated that the petitioner 
contributed with his "knowledge, assummg that they are unique, the 
classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In fact, 
that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien 
employment certification process. See Matter of New York State Department of Tramportation, 
22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Comm'r 1998). 
Although letter claims that that the petitioner made contributions to 
_ it fails to indicate that those contributions have been of major significance in the 
field. The letter provides only general statements without offering any specific information to 
establish how the petitioner's work has been of major significance in the field. The lack of 
specific information fails to provide a basis for determining that the petitioner's contributions 
have been of major significance. 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(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]." Without additional, specific evidence 
showing that the petitioner's 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 criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. 
At the initial filing of the petition or in response to the director's request for additional evidence 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8), the petitioner did not specifically claim 
eligibility for this criterion. However, in the director's decision, he determined that the 
petitioner's submission of an unpublished book failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on the previously discussed 
uncertified translations from www.gestionhumana.com. as well as his claim of "[p]ublication for 
the MBA of the Externado University of Colombia." 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of the 
alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media." 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 
case, the uncertified translations from www.gestionhumana.com do not contain the 
characteristics of scholarly articles as there is no evidence demonstrating that the screenshots 
were peer-reviewed, contain any references to sources, or were otherwise considered "scholarly." 
In fact, the uncertified translations of the screenshots refer to the petitioner in the third person 
and appear to summarize the petitioner's work. Clearly, the screenshots are not "scholarly 
articles" consistent with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
-Page 15 
Furthermore, for the reasons already discussed under the published material criterion pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii), the petitioner failed to demonstrate that 
www.gestionhumana.comis a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
Regarding the petitioner's MBA thesis, the petitioner submitted uncertified translations of the 
cover page and table of contents. Without a full and certified translation, the petitioner failed to 
establish that his documentary evidence reflects a scholarly article. Moreover, the petitioner 
failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing that it was published in a professional or 
major trade publication or other major media. 
Regarding the director's reference to the petitioner's book, the petitioner submitted a copy of his 
book entitled, As the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204. articles [emphasis added]," the submission of the 
petitioner's book does not equate to an article. An article is "a nonfictional prose composition 
usually forming an independent part of a publication (as a magazine).,,4 On the other hand, a 
book is "a long written or printed literary composition."s Furthermore, the regulation requires 
that the articles be "in professional or major trade publications or other major media." As books 
may be published independently or self-published, mere publication does not establish that a 
book is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. As there is no evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner's book was peer-reviewed, contained any references to sources, 
or was otherwise considered "scholarly," the petitioner's authorship of a book is insufficient to 
meet this criterion. Even if the petitioner's book equates to a scholarly article, which it clearly 
does not, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence to establish that his book was 
even published, let alone that it was published in a professional or major trade publication or 
other major media. 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of 
the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media." The documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to reflect that 
he has authored scholarly articles in his field in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media consistent with the plain language of the regulation. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(viii) requires 
4 See b.!..U?;LLwww.merriam-webster.com/dictionarv/arlide. accessed on January 17, 2012, and incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. 
S See http://www.mcrriam-wcbstcr.c(}m!Jicli()nary/but*~~_~hnw~.O~t-l}117R5044, accessed on January 17,2012, 
and incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 16 
"[ e ]vidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation [emphasis added]." 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. 
At the initial filing of the petition, counsel claimed: 
During 27 years, [the petitioner] has had the opportunity to perform a lead role in 
the area of Human Resources for different companies with distinguished 
reputation[s]. As shown in resume he has worked for 
gm;leu cUlnp;mlles such 
these companies, [the petitioner] has performed a lead role participating in the 
development of new systems and strategies in the area of Human Resources. 
At that time, the petitioner submitted several recommendation letters that generally praised the 
petitioner in a leading or critical role. 
For stated that the petitioner "participated 
in an outstandi and development of human resources management of 
the company." stated that the petitioner "demonstrated a level of 
responsibility and integrity in the performance of his job." 
.1Ii ••• stated that the petitioner "has taught new concepts, systems, and a[ n] integral concept 
on the human resources." While the letters reflected that he worked for 
were satisfied with the petitioner's work, 
they failed to reflect that the petitioner's roles were leading or critical to the respective 
organizations as a whole. The petitioner failed to submit evidence showing his position in 
relation to that of the other employees of the organization. There is no evidence demonstrating 
how the petitioner's roles difJerentiated him from the other workers. Without evidence 
establishing that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role, it is insufficient to simply 
submit letters praising the petitioner for his work ethic as evidence of his eligibility for this 
It is noted that while counsel referred to the 
regard.ing the ~pt;;t;A~pr' 0 
among 
others." It is insufficient to base the petitioner's eligibility on his self-serving job resume. Going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). 
On appeal, the petitioner did not contest the decision of the director based on the previously 
submitted and discussed for this 
criterion based on his role with Specifically, the 
petitioner claimed: 
Page 17 
Executive representatives of the 500.000 best companies in Colombia elected me, 
[the in several ocations [sic] (2002) to be a Board Member, and later 
its among the four (4) executives and four (4) CAFAM . 
. . workers, to safeguard the communities' interest in the largest Colombian 
[CAFAM]. 
* * * 
The role I played as the_of the Board of Directors in CAFAM ... -
largest one in Colombia-, is an example of my social leadership all 
.erformin g in a business oriented highly reputable position 
As evidence of his claims, the petitioner submitted photographs of him purportedly speaking and 
participating at various engagements. In addition, the petitioner submitted screenshots from 
several websites without any English language translations, let alone certified English language 
translations. The petitioner failed to submit any other documentary evidence regarding his role 
with_ In fact, the photographs and foreign language documents fail to reflect that he 
served as a member or president of _board of directors, and the petitioner failed to 
demonstrate that he performed in a leading or critical role for _ The documentary 
evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to support his claim that his role was leading or critical 
for _ Moreover, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that _s an organization or 
establishment that has a distinguished reputation pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Again, 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." The burden is on the petitioner to establish that he meets every 
element of this criterion. Without documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has 
performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation, the AAO cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services; in relation to others in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. In the 
petitioner's brief, he did not contest the findings of the director for this criterion or offer 
additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. See Sepulveda 
v. u.s. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (lIth Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
27312011,2011 WL4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiffs 
claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Page 18 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial Sllccesses in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. In the petitioner's brief, he did not contest the findings of the director for this criterion 
or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. See 
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d at 1228 n. 2; Hristov v. Roark, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9 
(the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opmlOn, the AAO must next conduct a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (I) 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," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 
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." See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(J)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1115. The petitioner met the plain language of one of the criteria, in which at least three are 
required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case, many of the deficiencies in 
the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in the AAO's 
preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In evaluating the AAO's tinal merits determination, the AAO must look at the totality of the 
evidence to determine the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. In 
this case, the petitioner has been recognized by Gerente Magazine and at the_ Awards, 
was a member with HBSP and has been e~n human 
resources with However, the personal 
accomplishments he "is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the tield of endeavor" and that he "has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the 
field of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(I)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." The 
petitioner's evidence must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to 
evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), therefore, depends on the 
Page 19 
extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary 
standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a 
level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
While the AAO determined that the petitioner met the judging criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), an evaluation of the significance of the petitioner's 
judging experience IS sanctioned under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-11. The petitioner 
demonstrated as 
an evaluator Occasional 
participation in the peer review process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. The petitioner's 
participation as an evaluator at least 12 years prior to the filing of the petition is not 
demonstrative of sustained national or international acclaim. Furthermore, without evidence pre­
dating the filing of the petition that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, the AAO 
cannot conclude that the petitioner is among that small percentage who has risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The AAO cannot ignore that the statute requires the pel1tlOner to submit "extensive 
documentation" of his sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(I)(A) of 
the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of 
the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of 
extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more 
extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30704 (July 5,1991). Again, the petitioner submitted uncertified and partial translations, as well 
as foreign language documents without any English language translations, that do not comply 
with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). In addition, although the petitioner submitted 
several recommendation letters, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support 
from the petitioner's personal contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 
795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 500 n.2 (BIA 2008). Thus, the content of the 
writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence. 
Moreover, the petitioner submitted self-promotional material rather than independent, objective 
evidence. Similarly, the record of proceeding contains numerous assertions by the petitioner 
without any supporting documentary evidence. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). The AAO is not persuaded that such evidence equates to 
Page 20 
"extensive documentation" and is demonstrative of this highly restrictive classification. The 
truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter of 
Chawathe,25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010) citing Matter of £-M- 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 
1989). 
The evidence of record falls short of demonstrating the petitioner's sustained national or 
international acclaim as a management consultant. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
requires "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that 
the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and this his or her achievements have 
been recognized in the field of expertise." While the petitioner submitted documentation 
demonstrating that he has been recognized by a publication and has worked in human resources, 
the documentary evidence is not consistent with or indicative of sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for immigrant classification as an alien of "extraordinary ability." 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899. In 
Matter of Racine, 1995 WL 153319 at *1, *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of that the appropriate field of comparison 
is not a comparison of with that of all the hockey players at all 
levels of play; but rather, ability as a professional hockey player within 
the NHL. This interpretatIOn IS consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Crimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the 
definition of the term 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the 
preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
The court's reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. Likewise, it does not follow that the petitioner who has not offered 
any evidence that distinguishes him from others in his field, should necessarily qualify for 
approval of an extraordinary ability employment-based visa petition. To find otherwise would 
contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be 
reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of 
endeavor." 
The conclusion the AAO reaches by considering the evidence to meet each category of evidence 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals at the top of their 
respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified 
future time. In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of 
filing the petition were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim, or that he 
was among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
IV. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he maybe said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
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 at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. Do.!, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 V.S.c. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.