dismissed EB-1A Case: Maritime Training

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of ~~er~oral ?rl\/scy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services 
OfJce ofAdministrafive Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
SRC 09 094 5 195 1 
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. 5 1 153(b)(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
~Dtdn[L/ 
$Perry Rhew 
f 
1 Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in business and/or education. The director determined that the petitioner had 
not established his requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and 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 the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act [USC 
cite removed because we already used it] and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(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, through counsel, argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60898-99 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines the following 
ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
(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 a judge 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; 
(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, 2010 WL 725317 (9th Cir. March 4, 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. 5 204.5(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 approach 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 "6 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(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. 5 204.5(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. fj 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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at "3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying 
under three criteria, 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 Dor v. INS, 891 
F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
' 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. 4 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
This petition, filed on February 4,2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an Instructor, Examiner, Inspector and Consultant in the maritime training industry and a 
manager in maritime training programs. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).~ 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jield for which 
classiJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
15, 2009, confirming the petitioner's membership in RYA, as well as a letter 
of US Sailing, who confirmed the petitioner is an "RYA consultant to the 
petitioner also submitted many pages from the RYA website, including an 
overview of the organization and the training and courses offered. The website also provides details 
regarding the requirements for membership into the RYA Council, but the petitioner's name is not 
listed as a current or former council member nor has he claimed to be a council member. In 
additions, articles regarding the RYA and their training programs from ww\\/.giiru\achts.com, 
ww\+.e\,esettpotter.com and =\.offshore-sailing.coni were submitted. However, 
\,t\,t\,t .niirayachts.com only provided some membership information; including indicating that RYA 
has over 103,000 personal members and 500,000 boat owners who are members of RYA affiliated 
clubs and associations. No other information regarding membership was provided. No new 
evidence regarding membership was provided in response to the director's Request for Evidence 
(RFE) or on appeal. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criteria, the petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner submits that he is a member of RYA. The record does not include evidence (such as 
membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that the preceding organization 
requires outstanding achievements of its members. Moreover, the petitioner failed to provide any 
evidence to demonstrate that membership in RYA is judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the maritime field. 
Counsel further cites to an unpublished decision where he states the AAO has recognized the receipt 
of a high-level coaching credential as consistent with membership. However, counsel has furnished 
no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 6 
unpublished decision. Moreover, while 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions 
are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not 
similarly binding. Nonetheless, while the petitioner may be employed at a high level within the 
RYA, we do not find this position commensurate with someone who was not only nominated and 
approved for coaching at an international level but who represented and administrated at national 
and international events. As such, we do not find his paid employment with the RYA amounts to 
membership in an association in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
Even if the petitioner were able to establish his membership in RYA was qualifjing, such a finding 
would still not sufficiently establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. The plain language of the 
regulation requires the petitioner's membership in associations. As such, membership in a single 
association would not be qualifying. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established 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 alliedjeld of specijication for which classzjication is 
sought. 
Counsel for the petitioner explained in his initial brief that the petitioner is "one of only two Examiners 
in the United States" and that he has judged "the most experienced and talented boat captains" seeking 
to be qualified as instructors and examiners. In addition, counsel claims that the petitioner has "spent 
his entire Navy career judging the work of others, as he climbed the ranks as a training officer, 
eventually taking charge of the country's entire submarine training program." Counsel for the petitioner 
did not pinpoint any specific evidence that he provided which supports his claims. 
Nonetheless. we have examined the record for evidence amlicable to this criterion. The netitioner I I 
~ ~ - ---~ --- --- - --. r - 
ated January 15, 
ers in the United 
also stated that the petitioner "judges the ability of some of the world's most 
experienced and talented sailors, who operate some of the world's most expensive and sophisticated 
vessels on every ocean in the world."   he letter also includes a section indicating that the has 
risen to the top of his field, which is a copy of the petitioner's biography verbatim. The petitioner also 
provided various evaluations given to him during his career in the navy. These evaluations were clearly 
complimentary of the supervisory function in which the petitioner served, yet they did not provide 
specific examples of how he judged the work of others. 
While we find that the petitioner has established that he meets the plain language of this criterion, this 
issue will be further addressed below in our final merits determination regarding whether the submitted 
evidence is commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim and being among that small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signljcance in the field. 
The petitioner initially submitted several letters of support praising the petitioner's experience and 
abilities in the maritime industry. In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided additional reference 
letters, and specifically claimed that his contribution of major significance is that his "efforts will have a 
significant beneficial impact on recreational boating in the United States" through his RYA 
accreditation program in the United States. On appeal, no new evidence was provided. However, the 
petitioner similarly argued in his addendum that "the implementation of the RYA system will change 
the U.S. system for training and licensure related to the operation of ocean going vessels of up to 200 
tons." 
The RYA's worldwide success has made it a benchmark for many maritime qualifications, 
whether professional or recreational, in the UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South 
Africa, most Caribbean Island states and now, due to Leo Speat, increasingly amongst the 
more prestigious U.S. Sailing organizations. 
is spearheading the process of implementing the RYA system in the United States. 
His contribution to the field of maritime instruction and examination, as well as to the facility 
accreditation and implementation of the entire RYA system in the United States has been 
remarkable. 
In this instance, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has had a significant national or 
international impact in the maritime industry such that it equates to an original contribution of major 
significance in his field. In fact, while generally states that the petitioner's contribution 
has been "remarkable," he fails to offer any specific example to support this statement. 
It is unquestionably the case that is an outstanding expert in maritime training, 
having been selected by the RYA to play the lead role in a program of such significance for 
the boating industry in the United States, and indeed, worldwide. 
Whilclaims that the petitioner is "an outstanding expert" and plays the lead role in 
a "program . . . of significance," he also fails to describe any specific original contribution of 
major significance on the part of the petitioner. 
As a result of the project spearheaded by U.S. boat operators will for the first time 
be able to carry internationally-recognized operating licenses. Through this work, - 
is making a contribution of major significance to the boating industry. 
  ow ever, statements fail to explain why it is important that U.S. boat operators have an 
international license. As such, it is difficult to understand how the petitioner's work on this project 
will be a contribution of major significance. 
RYA's trainin; and certification standards across the united States benefits the United States in the 
following manner. 
The benefit to the U.S. boating community is multifaceted. U.S. Coast Guard licensing of 
ships not covered by RYA licenses will become more streamlined and accessible while 
saving tax dollars as US Sailing absorbs more of the administration for captain licenses for 
boats and yachts. U.S. citizens with dual US SailingIRYA certifications will find greater 
acceptance and ease of travel around the world, due to the almost universal acceptance of the 
RYA license by ports, customs and immigration officials worldwide. 
While it appears from letter that the petitioner's implementation of RYA's standards 
will clearly benefit the United States, it is unclear whether such implementation can be considered an 
ori inal contribution of major significance. The current standards were developed and implemented 
by not the petitioner. As such, the petitioner's implementation of the same standards in 
another location cannot be an original contribution of major significance. 
An alien must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. The petitioner argues that his introduction of the 
RYA program to the U.S. is consistent with a contribution of major significance. However, the 
petitioner has not revolutionized the standards nor has he made improvements to them. The 
petitioner is simply implementing already existing standards in the U.S. In fact, is "the 
Chief Examiner and Head of Training at the Royal Yachting Association" and indicated that he 
"developed and implemented the current RYA Instructing and examining programme" and is 
"responsible for maintaining and improving the worldwide standards of RYA training and 
certification." As such, the petitioner has failed to show that his implementation of the RYA 
standards in the U.S. is a contribution of major significance. 
In this case, the petitioner failed to submit preexisting, independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance. While the letters highly praise the petitioner and provide 
examples of his work, they fail to establish that he has made contributions of major significance in 
his field. In evaluating the reference letters, they do not specifically identify how his contributions 
have influenced the field; rather, the letters discuss the possible implications that his work may lead 
to in the future. We will not consider evidence reflecting claims of future speculation. Eligibility 
must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $4 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 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. 1 14 (BIA 198 I), 
that we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 
176. 
In this case, the recommendation letters are not sufficient to meet this regulatory criterion. The 
opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. The statutory requirement that an alien 
have "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond the 
alien's immediate acquaintances. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinion statements as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of 
support from the petitioner's personal contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS 
may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 
795. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's 
reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited 
by an alien in support of any immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence or original contributions of major significance that one would expect of an individual who 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
As such, the petitioner has failed to establish that he has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted the following articles that he wrote for The Tritons in 2008, "How to pass 
the exam: Prepare well," "Follow-up on Yacht master qualification," and "USCG v MCA: no 
contest." The director determined the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. As 
the petitioner failed to contest this finding on appeal, we will not further review this determination in 
this proceeding. 
As such, the petitioner has not established 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. 
The petitioner's initial brief argued that the petitioner is playing a leading role: 
[I]n transforming the U.S. boating industry into one in which US Sailing is authorized to 
issue Certificates of Competence on behalf of RYA. As a result of the project 
spearheaded by U.S. boat operators will for the first time be able to carry 
internationally-recognized operating licenses. 
The petitioner also referenced the letter from which confirms the petitioner's 
involvement in developing and implementing a training program in the United States. A second letter 
from - stated that he had worked "very closely" with the petitioner on "several 
projects of major importance." However, failed to provide any specific projects or 
responsibilities that he and the petitioner worked on. The petitioner also provided evidence to show his 
qualifications, including a listing of RYA courses indicating that the petitioner is the Registered 
Principal, a qualifying certificate for the petitioner's completion of Nuclear General Course Number 57 
and a RYA Yacht Master Certificate of Competence. Lastly, the petitioner provided the Memorandum 
of Understanding (MOU) between RYA and US Sailing, which explained the agreement between the 
two organizations regarding the development of training courses and qualifications in the United States. 
The MOU does not mention the petitioner specifically. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided a reference letter from of the Offshore 
Sailing School, dated June 5, 2009. letter also confirms the petitioner's role in 
implementing RYA standards and inspecting training schools in the United States to determine 
whether they merit accreditation for the RYA. On appeal, no new evidence was provided, however 
counsel states that the petitioner meets this criterion by his implementation of RYA training and 
licensure standards in the U.S. 
In order to establish that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or 
establishment with a distinguished reputation, he must establish the nature of his role within the 
organization or establishment and its reputation. The position should also be of such significance 
that the alien's selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim. 1; all the above-referenced evidence, although the petitioner 
provides evidence of his appointment as a RYA representative to the U.S. through reference letters, 
he fails to show that his position is commensurate with a leading or critical role. For example, the 
petitioner has not submitted an organizational chart or other similar evidence showing where the 
petitioner's position fell within the hierarchy of RYA. As previously stated under 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(ivw letter explains that the petitioner is only one of two examiners in the 
U.S. However, also indicates that there are "1,304 Instructors, 377 are also Examiners. 
Examiners are authorized to assess candidates for the issuance of Certificates of Competence." Further, 
identifies himself as a Chief Examiner. It is unclear how his role as a Chief Examiner, or 
those of the other Examiners, differs from that of the petitioner. 
Further, the only evidence of the petitioner's leading role in the development in a training program in 
the United States for the RYA came directly from RYA. There was no independent evidence provided, 
or evidence other than reference letters that discuss the petitioner's leadership. Further, most of the 
letters actually discussed the petitioner's leadership qualities rather than his roles. For example, 
found the petitioner's "trustworthiness was beyond question," and noted the petitioner's 
credentials and certifications, rather than discussing examples of his actual leadership. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
Counsel states in his appeal brief that "comparable evidence may be submitted where the listed 
categories are inapplicable." Similarly, he argues that the petitioner is "one of the few people in the 
world to have received the appointments, qualifications, and promotions," and therefore has satisfied 
the awards criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.K. $ 204.5(h)(3)(i). However, the petitioner's advancement in 
his career and the qualifications that he has obtained do not equate to awards. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria 
"do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes the 
consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no evidence that eligibility for visa 
preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) of which the petitioner has claimed that he meets four. Where an 
alien is simply unable to meet three of the regulatory criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
C. Prior 0-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Status 
We note that although the record contains evidence of the petitioner's prior approval as an 0-1 non- 
immigrant, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant 
petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See e.g. Q Data 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. 
Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). 
Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than I- 140 immigrant 
petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. 
INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 
WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an 
extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See e.g. Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO.'s authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between 
a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
D. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct 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," 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 2010 WL 725317 at *3. 
In this case, the specific deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already 
been addressed in our preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The 
submitted documentation relating to the petitioner's achievements in the maritime industry 
demonstrates that he is currently working on implementing standards and certification in the United 
States for RYA. The submitted evidence, however, is not indicative of the petitioner's sustained 
national or international acclaim and there is no indication that his individual achievements have been 
recognized in the field. 
With regard to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), although the petitioner met the 
plain language of the regulation, the petitioner's instruction and evaluation is not commensurate with 
someone at the top of his field. In the petitioner's career as a navy officer, simply judging the work 
of his subordinates was inherent to someone of a higher rank. Further, the petitioner's career in the 
British Navy culminated in 1997, according to his biography, which was over a decade prior to the 
filing of his petition. As such, the submitted evidence does not establish that the petitioner's national 
or international acclaim has been sustained with respect to this position. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 11 53(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Likewise, the fact that it is part of the petitioner's job with the RYA, to judge those with whom he 
has conducted examinations and issue certificates of competence, is not consistent with this highly 
restrictive classification either. The petitioner was not, for instance, judging a competition of skilled 
boatsmen, rather he was simply reviewing captains and crews for competence. The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(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." Evidence of the petitioner's 
participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to 
evidence depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower 
evidentiary standard 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. 5 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a national 
competition for boating professionals is of far greater probative value than judging a local competition 
for youth or novices or issuing certificates of competence. 
The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent 
with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(h)(2). 
111. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established his eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of 
the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
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 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.