dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Ameals MS 2090 
-fling data deleted to 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
'/ P 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER D~~~MAR 3 1 2010 
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 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 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). 
) Pew Rhew u 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The 
AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before the AAO on motion to reopen and 
reconsider. The motion will be granted, the previous decision of the AAO will be affirmed, and the 
petition will remain denied. 
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 athletics. The director and the AAO determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained national 
or international acclaim. 
On motion, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
Cj 204.5(h)(3) and that the "AAO erred in their appreciation of the facts presented in this case." For 
the reasons discussed below, the petitioner's motion does not overcome the AAO's findings. 
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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101'' 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. 
Id. and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate hs or her sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements must be 
Page 3 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten criteria. 
(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 201 0, 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 
procedure for evaluating 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 
' 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. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
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. 5 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. $ 11 53(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 
This petition, filed on August 9, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in the martial arts. 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 receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
* The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
The petitioner submitted the following Nepali certificates: gymnastics awards from the 1980s, a 
1984 first position certificate from the Second National Martial Arts Competition, an undated 
second position certificate from the Free Style Open Karate Competition organized by Shito- 
Ryu Karate Do and a 1984 second position certificate from the First Sagarmatha Tae Kwon Do 
Competition. The petitioner also submitted a 2003 "Hall of Fame" certificate recognizing the 
petitioner's "dedication to the martial arts" from the World United Martial Arts Federation 
(WMA). In support of the significance of the Hall of Fame certificate, the petitioner 
submitted a list of 2003 awardees from WUMA's website, www.wuma.uk.com. The petitioner 
was one of 67 individuals to receive this recognition. The awards were issued in various 
categories, including several "dedication" awards, some to martial arts in general, some to an 
individual club, one to the awardee's students and one to "the arts." The list includes three 
"Kung Fu Instructor of the Year" awards, two "Long Serving Student" awards and several 
merely in a "Dan" (black belt category) level. 
On June 1 1,2008, the director issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) advising that the gymnastic 
awards were not evidence of acclaim as a martial artist and requesting evidence of the 
significance, scope and criteria for the awards documented. In response, the petitioner asserts 
that gymnastics and Wushu martial arts are "two sides of a coin." The petitioner supported this 
assertion with materials about Wushu indicating that it included gymnastics as part of the 
training. The petitioner fixther asserts that his 1984 martial arts awards were national in scove. 
The peiitioner'submitted a letter from fi of WMA, 
asserting that the Hall of Fame award was issued in recognition of the petitioner's "many 
successful years within the Martial Arts." 
The director concluded that the letter from did not establish the significance of the 
Hall of Fame award, that the petitioner had not documented the significance of his martial arts 
awards, . . . and had not sufficiently established that gymnastics and martial arts are the same 
field. 
On appeal, counsel does not address the director's concerns directly. Rather, counsel simply 
reviews the evidence that was submitted and asserts that the martial arts and gymnastics awards 
were national in scope. The petitioner submits a new letter from stating the 
following requirements for the Hall of Fame award: 
1. Martial Artist must be a member of WUMA family. 
2. Refereed must be national/International tournaments. 
3. Must be hold [sic] Black belt lSt Dan and above. 
4. Must have made contribution to the Nation as a coach, referee or an official. 
5. Dedication to the Martial Arts for the lifetime must have studied at least 10 years actively in 
Martial arts any style Full-Semi-Light Contact and also Kata/Forms and Self-defence. 
Page 6 
letter includes WUMA's website address. Moreover, the petitioner previously 
submitted materials from WUMA's website. As stated above, the website materials list 67 
awardees, some of whom are only students. This information is not entirely consistent with 
assessment of the award on appeal. By presenting evidence from WUMA's website, 
the petitioner has introduced the website into the record of proceeding for consideration. Thus, 
we have reviewed the site at www.wuma.uk.com. The website includes an online nomination 
form for the Hall of Fame award at www.wuma.uk.com/old/HOF/HOF%20Nomination% 
20Details.htm (accessed July 28, 2009 and incorporated into the record). The nomination form 
indicates that the awards were initiated by to reward instructors "with their own 
appreciative students nominating them." Significantly, the form also contradicts the letter 
provided by on appeal, stating: 
The nominees need not be in WUMA, this award is for ALL MARTIAL ARTISTS. 
You can use this form to nominate outstanding martial artists who have trained hard 
with no acclaim. Instructors who have worked hard teaching you with no acclaim, a 
fellow student who you feel is worthy, etc. Don't miss this one off [sic] chance to at last 
reward your Instructor or Student with what they deserve. 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by 
independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will 
not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). The record does not resolve 
the discrepancies between the website materials, some of which were submitted by the 
petitioner, and assertions on appeal. Moreover, doubt cast on any aspect of the 
petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of 
the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Id. at 591. 
While Wushu martial arts may incorporate some gymnastics techniques, we concur with the 
director that gymnastics is a separate field and that awards in gymnastics are no indication of 
acclaim in the martial arts. 
The petitioner's own attestation cannot establish the significance of his 1984 martial arts 
awards. Specifically, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Cornrn'r. 1972)). Similarly, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). While the 1984 awards may have a national pool of candidates, the awards 
must be nationally recognized. On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from m - of the Nepal Shito-Ryu Karate Do Association, National Sports Council, 
asserting that the Free Style Open Karate Competition took place at the National Stadium and 
Page 7 
was a "National Level Tournament." Objective evidence of this award's significance, such as - 
evidence that the competitions are covered in the major media or gamer any media attention, 
would have bolstered statement. 
With regard to the petitioner's 2003 Hall of Fame certificate from the WUMA, counsel states: 
The requirement in the form displayed in the WUMA website is for Hall of Fame Award 
2008, which according to in his letter is still in process. It is a different criteria 
from the those [sic] that were applied in 2003 when petitioner received the Hall of Fame 
Award. 
There being no inconsistency the doubt casted [sic] on any aspect of the petitioner's proof 
must be lifted. Moreover, the Director in its evaluation of the petitioner's documentary 
evidences accepted and admits their authenticity. 
Contrary to counsel's claim, nowhere in the director's discussion of the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(i) is there a specific statement accepting or admitting the authenticity of the 
petitioner's awards. Rather, the director's decision stated: "Most notably, the petitioner has 
brovided no objective documentary evidence to establish the significance of his martial arts awards 
and Hall of Fame award." Counsel does not address the AAO's statement that 67 individuals received 
WUMA Hall of Fame awards in 2003, "including several 'dedication' awards, some to martial arts in 
general, some to an individual club, one to the awardee's students and one to 'the arts.' The list 
includes three 'Kung Fu Instructor of the Year' awards, two 'Long Serving Student' awards and several 
merely in a 'Dan' (black belt category) level." The AAO noted that this information is not entirely 
consistent with assessment of the award on appeal. We reaffirm this finding. Moreover, 
the petitioner has not established that the statement in September 29, 2008 letter that the 
"WUMA 2008 Hall of Fame award 2008 is in process now" refers to the development of new and 
different award criteria rather than simply to the process of receiving nominees for that year's award. In 
this instance, the petitioner has not submitted independent and objective evidence to resolve the 
inconsistency regarding the specific criteria for the WUMA Hall of Fame award. It remains that the 
Hall of Fame criteria described in letter are completely different than those identified on 
WUMA's official online nomination form at www.wuma.uk.corn/old/HOF/ HOF%20Nomination% 
20Details.htm. Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's Hall of Fame award for 
"dedication" equates to a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence. 
Regarding the awards from the various competitions won by the petitioner, we reaffirm the AAO's 
finding that there is no evidence showing that these awards are nationally or internationally 
recognized in his field. The record does not include supporting evidence demonstrating the 
significance and magnitude of the specific competitive categories won by him. For instance, there is 
no evidence of the official comprehensive results from the preceding competitions indicating the 
total number of entrants in the petitioner's competitive category or weight division. The plain 
language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the 
petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his 
burden to establish every element of this criterion. In this case, there is no evidence establishing that 
Page 8 
the petitioner's awards had a significant level of recognition beyond the context of the events where 
they were presented. Moreover, a competition may be open to athletes from throughout a particular 
country or countries, but this factor alone is not adequate to establish that an award or prize is 
"nationally or internationally recognized." The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level 
of recognition and achievement associated with his awards. Moreover, with regard to awards won 
by the petitioner in obscure sporting events not demonstrated to have a significant pool of 
competitors, we cannot conclude that such awards demonstrate qualifying forms of national or 
international recognition. 
The AAO's appellate decision further stated: "Even if we considered the awards of an alien's students 
to be comparable evidence to meet this criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(4), a claim not raised 
by the petitioner, the record does not contain the awards or evidence of their national significance." 
On motion, the petitioner submits an August 19, 2009 letter from stating: "I have 
accomplished Bronze Medal in WMA world championship 2000 in Sicily, Italy under guidance by 
coach [the petitioner], and Silver Medal in Millennium cup WUMA tournament 2000 in London, UK." 
The petitioner also submits a photograph of himself posing with, who is holding up a trophy, 
in front of a banner at the 2000 WMA World Championship. The petitioner submits additional 
photographs of hlm posing with athletes at an event he identifies as the loth South Asian Games (SAG) 
in 2006. The petitioner's initial evidence included letters of support fiom some of those athletes. For 
example, the petitioner submitted a July 22,2007 letter fiom stating: "We have gone 
together to participate 10' SAG Games in Colombo, Sri Lanka on [sic] 2006, I have achieved 1 place 
and received Gold Medal on that SAG games and [the petitioner] was the leader of our Nepal Wushu 
Team." The petitioner also submitted a March 13, 2007 letter from stating: 
"We just have gone together to participated [sic] 10' SAG Games in Colombo Sri Lanka on [sic] 2006, 
I have achieved 2nd Place and received Silver Medal on that game. I am really proud of my teacher [the 
petitioner] . . . . " None of the preceding athletes specify their dates of training under the petitioner's 
direct tutelage. Moreover, while the petitioner has submitted photographs from the preceding 
competitions, the record does not contain copies of the preceding awards or evidence of their national 
or international significance (as previously noted in the AAO's appellate decision). The photographs 
alone, without evidence demonstrating, for instance, the number of entrants who competed in each 
award category, their level of experience, and the significance of the competitions, is not sufficient 
to establish that the awards received at these competitions are nationally or internationally 
recognized. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that athletes coached primarily by him 
have won nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. 
In support of his appeal, the petitioner submitted a July 27,2008 certificate from the United States Kuo 
Shu Federation stating that he won second place in the "ADV Tai Ji - Yang Style Men" category in the 
2008 U.S. International Kuo Shu Championship Tournament held at the Marriott Hunt Valley Inn in 
Maryland. The petitioner also submitted a photograph of him holding a trophy in front of a Tiger 
Claw.com poster. A caption below the photograph added by the petitioner states: "U.S. Capital 
Classics Martial Arts Tournament Washington, D.C. Aug. 2008 Advance Tai Chi Event and received 
4' place trophy." In addressing this evidence, the AAO stated: 
The petitioner also submitted 2008 U.S. award certificates from competitions that appear from 
the photographs to have taken place in hotel conference rooms rather than stadiums. These 
certificates, however, postdate the filing of the petition and cannot be considered evidence of the 
petitioner's eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l. Comrn'r. 1971). 
On motion, the petitioner submits material from the organizer of the 2008 U.S. International Kuo Shu 
Championship Tournament, including a "2008 Write-Up" and pages from the tournament program 
reflecting best wishes to the organizer from various politicians, but this evidence does not establish that 
the petitioner's award is nationally or internationally recognized in the martial arts. Nevertheless, the 
preceding competition was held subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
49. A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new 
set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further 
provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider facts 
that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Accordingly, the AAO 
will not consider awards from 2008 in this proceeding. 
In light of the above, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classlJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
Initially, the petitioner claimed to be a "Life Member" of WUMA. The petitioner initially 
submitted official certificates documenting his full membership in the World Board of Black 
Belts (WBOB) of WUMA. The petitioner also submitted a letter certifying that the petitioner is 
the Director of the International Body Guard Union, Nepal (IBU - Nepal). In his RFE, the 
director requested evidence of the petitioner's life membership in WUMA and the membership 
requirements for any association of which the petitioner is a member. In response, the petitioner 
submitted a card documenting his WUMA iife membership and a letter' from' - 
affirming the petitioner's life membership but providing no information as to the requirements 
for that membership. Regardless, for the reasons stated above, credibility is 
seriously diminished. 
The director noted that the petitioner had failed to respond to the request for evidence of the 
membership requirements for the associations of which he is a member. Counsel's appellate 
brief does not address ths criterion and the petitioner submitted no new evidence addressing the 
membership criteria for the above associations. 
The membership criteria are an essential element of this criterion according to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Despite the director's specific request, 
the petitioner has not documented the membership criteria of WUMA, WBOB or the IBU- 
Nepal. In light of the above, the petitioner has not provided the required initial evidence to meet 
this criterion. 
On motion, counsel does not address the AAO's findings directly and the petitioner does not submit 
any further evidence for this criterion. Rather, counsel simply reviews the evidence that was 
submitted and asserts that the petitioner holds "membership in associations in his filed [sic] of 
endeavor that requires [sic] outstanding achievements of their members." Upon review, we find the 
AAO properly considered the evidence submitted, thoroughly addressed the petitioner's arguments, 
and appropriately addressed the evidence and arguments in its decision. Accordingly, we reaffirm 
our appellate finding that the petitioner does not meet 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 classiJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
Initially the petitioner submitted pictures of himself available at www.nepalhorizons.com and 
undated articles about himself appearing in Sahashrabdi and Naba Yuba. The petitioner also 
submitted brief mentions of himself appearing in 2002 and 2003 in Nepal Samacharpatra, 
Space Time, The Himalayan Times, The Himalayan New Service, Ra'dhani and Kantipur 
Mangsir. The petitioner also submitted an article about that mentions the 
petitioner in an unidentified publication. 
In his RFE, the director requested evidence of the significance of the above publications, such as 
circulation and distribution data. In response, the petitioner personally attests to the circulation 
and distribution of the publications, sometimes vaguely referencing them as "popular and read 
in Nepal" and sometimes citing www.wikipedia.org or www.newsofne~al.com/factsheet 
/samachar.htm. With regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the 
reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site. See Lamilem Badasa v. 
Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (gth Cir. 2008). As such, we will not give significant weight 
to claims for which Wikipedia is the only cited source. We reviewed 
www.newsofnepal.com/factsheet/samachar.htm (accessed July 29, 2009 and incorporated 
into the record of proceeding), which confirms that Nepal Samacharpatra is a "vernacular 
national daily" with a circulation of 800,000, making it the "second highest circulated daily" 
in Nepal. The petitioner submitted a 2001 article quoting him in Khel Sansar. 
The director concluded that much of the material only briefly mentioned the petitioner and 
that the petitioner had not provided the necessary evidence to demonstrate that any of the 
publications constitute major media. Counsel does not address this criterion on appeal but 
the petitioner submits information about www.nepalhorizons.com, indicating it averages 
10,000 visits daily and features videos, online radio, community pictures, blogs, news and 
interviews. The petitioner was put on notice of required evidence and given a reasonable 
opportunity to provide it for the record before the visa petition was adjudicated. The 
petitioner failed to submit the requested evidence and now submits it on appeal. However, 
the AAO will not consider this evidence for any purpose. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 537 (BIA 1988). The 
appeal will be adjudicated based on the record of proceeding before the director. Regardless, 
the petitioner has not demonstrated that the posting of his video of his performance on a 
website that includes "community pictures" constitutes published material about him or is 
indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
While we are satisfied that Nepal Samacharpatra is major media, the brief mention of the 
petitioner in this publication cannot be said to be published material "about" the petitioner. 
Despite the director's request, the petitioner has not submitted circulation, distribution or 
other data that might establish that the publications that did carry articles about the petitioner, 
Sahashrabdi and Naba Yuba are professional or major trade journals or other major media. 
On motion, the petitioner does not specifically challenge any of the AA07s appellate findings for th~s 
regulatory criterion. Upon review, we find the AAO properly considered the evidence submitted, 
thoroughly addressed the petitioner's arguments, and appropriately addressed the evidence and 
arguments in its decision. 
The petitioner resubmits a five-sentence article in the September 21, 2002 issue of the Himalayan 
Times entitled "Wushu competition." The article only briefly mentions the petitioner along with 
several others. The plain language of this criterion, however, requires that the published material be 
"about the alien." Moreover, the author of the article was not identified as required by the plain 
language of this criterion and there is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that this 
English language newspaper qualifies as a form of major media in Nepal. 
The petitioner resubmits an untitled article in Sports World (October 2001), but the author of the 
material was not identified. Further, the English language translation of the article submitted in 
response to the director's request for evidence does not meet the requirements of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(3), which requires that any document containing foreign language submitted to 
USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has certified as 
complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English. The petitioner's motion includes an August 21, 2009 letter 
from the president of the Nepal Sports Journalist Forum stating that Sports World "is one of the 
renowned sports magazines in Nepal with circulation across 68 districts." The record, however, 
does not include evidence such as circulation figures showing the distribution for Sports World 
relative to other Nepali media to demonstrate that the submitted article was published in a form of major 
media. 
Page 12 
The petitioner resubmits a July 27, 1997 article in Kantipur entitled "Success of Galaxy Students in 
International Wushu." This article is not about the petitioner and only briefly mentions him along with 
several others. Further, the author of the article was not identified and the English language 
translation accompanying the article was not certified by the translator that he or she is competent to 
translate from the foreign language into English. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The petitioner's motion 
includes information fiom Kantipur Publications Pvt. Ltd. stating that Kantipur Daily has a daily 
circulation of 250,000, but the self-serving nature of this information from the newspaper's publisher is 
not sufficient to demonstrate that the publication is a form of major media. 
In light of the above, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not meet 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 classijication is 
sought. 
The petitioner submitted certificates reflecting that he refereed various competitions in 1998, 1999, 
2000, and 2003. In finding that the preceding evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's 
appellate decision stated: "The petitioner submitted evidence that he is a qualified referee and has 
refereed competitions. The record contains no evidence that referees do more than enforce the rules." 
On motion, the petitioner does not specifically challenge this finding or submit evidence addressing this 
issue. Accordingly, we reaffirm our earlier finding regarding this issue. 
The petitioner also submitted certificates stating that he served on the jury of or as a judge for the 
Second Inter School Wushu Championship in an unknown year, the First Inter School Wushu 
Championships in 1994, the Fourth "Panathion" International High School Karate and Kick Boxing 
Championship in Kathmandu in 1997, the First International Invitational Semi Contact Karate and 
Full Contact Kick Boxing Championship in Kathmandu in 200 1, the First WUMA Goju-Kai-Karate 
(Woko) League Championship in 2002 and the First WUMA Wushu Championship in 2002. 
Accordingly, this evidence appears to meet the plain language of this regulatory criterion. However, 
several deficiencies pertaining to this evidence were noted by the director and by the AAO. These 
deficiencies will be addressed below in our final merits determination regarding whether the submitted 
evidence is commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim, or being among that small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Evidence of the alien S originul scientijc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
Initially, the petitioner submitted letters from other martial artists supporting the petition. 
, a martial arts instructor in Virginia and the petitioner's former fellow team 
member, broadly affirms the petitioner's "great influence" in the field. - 
of his teacher, the petitioner. The director's RFE requested examples of specific original 
contributions and objective evidence of their significance in the field. In response, the petitioner 
relies on his length of time in the field, his leading roles for martial arts associations and his Hall 
of Fame Award. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not identified original contributions or 
demonstrated the impact of those contributions. On appeal, counsel does not address this 
criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the 
petitioner's contributions be both original and of major significance. The petitioner has not 
demonstrated that accruing lengthy experience or the mere act of serving in a leading role is 
original. We note that the regulations already include a criterion addressing an alien's leading 
or critical role, 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which will be discussed below. We are not 
persuaded that evidence submitted to meet that criterion must also meet this criterion. To hold 
otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence and the 
regulatory requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria. For the reasons discussed above, 
the petitioner has not established the significance of his Hall of Fame Award. 
Without evidence of specific original contributions that have demonstrably impacted the field of 
Wushu, the petitioner cannot demonstrate that he meets this criterion. 
On motion, counsel states: 
For this particular criterion, we believe that the AAO erred in not appreciating the letters 
submitted by other marital artist [sic] supporting this petition. These letters are testimonials 
of the numerous contributions of the petitioner in the field of martial arts in the form of his 
achievements as co 
Daksin Bahu Med 
achieving a medal for the country in international WUMA World Championship in Sicily, 
Italy 2000 under his tutelage is a major significant contribution in the field of martial arts in 
Nepal. 
Counsel does not address the AAO's findings directly and does not specify which letters the AAO 
"erred in not appreciating." For instance, the AAO's appellate decision discussed the letters from 
other martial artists. Nevertheless, the petitioner's motion does not specifically identify his 
"original" contributions and there is no evidence demonstratin 
petitioner's motion includes an August 15, 2009 letter from of WUMA- 
Nepal, stating that the petitioner has been "an outstanding 
[The petitioner's] guidance, direction, and support to the players made possible to achieve 
many Gold Medals in the National and International championship. 
His dedications in Martial Art are highly remarkable in the history of Nepalese sport. He has 
been awarded by the Hall of Fame in 2003 by WUMA Head Quarters in Cheltenham, 
England. I found him very sincere, hard working and very skillful person in his way of 
Martial Arts. 
With regard to the awards received by the petitioner and his students, this evidence has already been 
addressed under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(i). Here it is again emphasized 
that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist 
for awards and original contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view these 
criteria as being interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that 
an alien met another criterion the re uirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be 
meaningless. Moreover, letter does not explain how the petitioner's contributions 
were "original" or provide specific examples of how those contributions have significantly 
influenced the martial arts field. 
Counsel further states that the petitioner has contributed to "the development of Wushu in Nepal and 
India during his long active and dedicated service as [an] officer in nationally and internationally 
recognized associations." As discussed in the AAO's appellate decision, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that accruing lengthy experience or the mere act of serving in a leading role is original. 
We reiterate that the regulations already include a criterion addressing an alien's leading or critical role, 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(viii), a criterion that the petitioner has already met. 
With regard to the petitioner's athletic and coaching achievements, the reference letters do not 
specify exactly what his original contributions in the martial arts have been, nor is there an 
explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major significance in his field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has earned the admiration of 
those offering letters of support, there is no evidence demonstrating that he has made original 
athletic contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the record does not indicate 
the extent of the petitioner's influence on other martial arts practitioners nationally or internationally, 
nor does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the reference letters submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
These letters, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary 
ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (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 writers7 
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 of original contributions of major 
Page 15 
significance that one would expect of a martial artist who has sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
Upon review, we find the AAO properly considered the evidence submitted, thoroughly addressed 
the petitioner's arguments, and appropriately addressed the evidence and arguments in its decision. 
Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's original work has been unusually 
influential, highly acclaimed throughout his sport, or has otherwise risen to the level of athletic 
contributions of major significance, we reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The AAO previously found that the Nepal Wushu Association enjoys a distinguished reputation and 
that the petitioner's role of Secretary General was leading or critical role for that association. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this second criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signlJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field 
In finding that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy this criterion, the AAO's appellate decision 
stated: 
The petitioner initially submitted a letter from B.S. and Company Registered Auditors in Nepal 
asserting that, "according to the appointment/contract letters," the petitioner receives the 
salary for a martial artist in Nepal is $300 monthly. In his WE, the director requested tax 
documents, wage statements or similar evidence of income and evidence that the petitioner's 
income is significantly high in relation to others in the field. The petitioner's response did not 
address this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel notes that the court in [Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1232, n. 12 (E.D. Mich. 
1994)], found that the appropriate comparison was with others in the field in that country rather 
than with members of the field in the United States or internationally. We do not contest this 
principle. It is still the petitioner's burden, however, to demonstrate that that his wages compare 
with the most renowned and experienced members of his field in Nepal. 
First, the petitioner did not comply with the director's request for the primary evidence of his 
remuneration. Even assuming that tax documents or wage statements do not exist or are not 
Page 16 
available: the B.S. and Company letter submitted by the petitioner references 
"appointment/contract letters." The petitioner did not submit those letters. Second, the letter 
from B.S. and Company does not explain where it obtained information about the "average" 
martial artist salary in Nepal. Regardless, it is insufficient to document that the petitioner earns 
more than the average salary in his field. Rather, he must earn a "significantly high" salary. 
The record does not document top-level salaries for martial artists in Nepal. 
Finally, the petitioner only earned higher than average remuneration by combining four salaries. 
It is unknown how many hours the petitioner worked for each employer. We cannot conclude 
that collecting higher than average wages by working more hours than average is indicative of 
or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
On motion, counsel does not address the AA07s findings directly and the petitioner does not submit 
any further evidence for this criterion. Rather, counsel simply states that the petitioner has received 
a high salary in relation to others in his field. Counsel again cites Buletini for the contention that the 
appropriate salary comparison involves others in the alien's field in the country where he was working 
rather than with members of the field in the United States or internationally. As previously noted, we 
do not contest this principle. The petitioner, however, has not submitted primary evidence of his actual 
remuneration for any specific period of time or provided an appropriate basis for comparison showing 
that his earnings were significantly high in relation to those of others in the field. Upon review, we find 
the AAO properly considered the evidence submitted, thoroughly addressed the petitioner's 
arguments, and appropriately addressed the evidence and arguments in its decision. Accordingly, we 
reaffirm our appellate finding that the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination and our appellate findings that the petitioner 
has failed to demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at 
least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
B. 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. 8 204.5(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)(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). See also Kazarian, 2010 WL 725317 at *3. In this case, many of the 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. $204.5(h)(3). 
3 The unavailability or non-existence of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(2). 
When relying on secondary evidence, the petitioner must provide documentary evidence that the primary evidence is 
either unavailable or does not exist. Id. When relying on an affidavit, the petitioner must demonstrate that both primary 
and secondary evidence are unavailable. Id. 
With regard to the evidence submitted for the prizes and awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
the director concluded that martial arts awards which are over 20 years old cannot demonstrate 
sustained national or international acclaim. The director also noted that the petitioner's gymnastics 
awards were over 20 years old and that they did not pertain to the field of endeavor for which 
classification is sought. On motion, counsel argues that the AAO erred in affirming the director's 
conclusion that awards predating the filing of the petition by 20 years cannot demonstrate sustained 
national acclaim. We agree with counsel that plain language of 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) "does not 
give a timeline on which the awards should have been received." However, the plain language of 
statute and of the controlling regulation requires the petitioner to demonstrate that his national or 
international acclaim has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
4 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204,5(h)(3). The submitted evidence is not consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim in the martial arts or gymnastics as of the date of filing of 
this petition. Moreover, there is no further qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) or the 
other regulatory criteria documenting the petitioner's more recent national or international acclaim 
as a martial artist or gymnast in the years immediately preceding the filing date. 
Regarding the evidence submitted for the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii), we 
cannot ignore the lack of articles about the petitioner in major publications fi-om 2004 through the 
petition's filing date. As previously noted, the statute and regulations require the petitioner to 
demonstrate that his national or international acclaim has been sustained. 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). The documentation submitted 
for 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) is not consistent with sustained national or international acclaim as of 
the date of filing this petition and there is no further qualifying evidence under this criterion or the 
other criteria documenting the petitioner's national or international acclaim in the martial arts in the 
years immediately preceding the filing date. 
With regard to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the petitioner submitted 
certificates stating that he served on the jury of or as a judge for the Second Inter School Wushu 
Championship in an unknown year, the First Inter School Wushu Championships in 1994, the Fourth 
"Panathion" International High School Karate and Kick Boxing Championship in Kathmandu in 
1997, the First International Invitational Semi Contact Karate and Full Contact Kick Boxing 
Championship in Kathmandu in 2001, the First WUMA Goju-Kai-Karate (Woko) League 
Championship in 2002 and the First WUMA Wushu Championship in 2002. Only the latter 
certificate specifies the event or category judged by the petitioner, but the submitted evidence does 
not indicate the number of competitors he judged at the First WUMA Wushu Championship, their 
names, and their level of expertise. With regard to the remaining certificates, there is no supporting 
evidence (such as an event program) showing the specific competitive categories judged by the 
petitioner, the names of the participating athletes, and their level of expertise. Moreover, there is no 
evidence indicating the level of notoriety or stature associated with the preceding competitions and 
the specific means by which the petitioner was selected to judge at the events. 
In addressing this evidence for 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the AAO's appellate decision stated: 
Page 18 
In his RFE [request for evidence], the director requested evidence of the selection criteria for 
these positions and the duties and responsibilities for these positions. In response, the 
petitioner submitted a letter from asserting that the petitioner passed an exam to 
qualify as an A Class Referee, which allows him to participate as a worldwide referee at 
WUMA events. asserts that A Class is an international referee, B Class is a 
national referee and C Class is a judge. As discussed above, the credibility of is 
seriously diminished. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted the evidence requested and that 
obtaining certification and performing "common" duties inherent to that certification cannot 
serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel appears to be asserting that the director 
engaged in the "circular" reasoning that concerned the court in Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 
123 1. Counsel states (grammar as it appears in original): 
The [director's] requirement that Petitioner has not garnered any recognition 
consistent with national or international acclaim as a result of providing these services 
(Judge, Referee) nor is there any indication that this places him among the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and therefore in the 
absence of such evidence, petitioner does not meet this criterion plainly gross 
misinterpretation of the law. 
First, as stated above, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a 
United States circuit court, the AAO is not bound to follow the published decision of a 
United States district court in cases arising within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, [20 
I&N Dec. 71 5 (BIA 1993)l. The reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be 
given due consideration when it is properly before the AAO; however, the analysis does not 
have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. Second, the Buletini court found that 
requiring a petitioner to demonstrate that a particular judging responsibility required 
extraordinary ability was circular. To avoid any analysis of the judging duties, however, 
would be to equate local, low-level judges in the judges7 own community with national level 
judges. Obviously, most judging fails between the two extremes and must be evaluated on a 
case-by-case basis. Such evaluation considers not whether the position requires extraordinary 
ability, the concept rejected by the Buletini court, but whether the judging position is 
indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. Accord Yasar [v. DHq, 
2006 WL 778623 at *9; A11 Pro Cleaning Services [v. DOL], 2005 WL 4045866 at * 11. 
Those who are sought as judges by national entities or, on a case-by-case basis, local entities 
outside their communities have a stronger claim than those who serve on local panels. 
The petitioner's judging services in 2001 and 2002 appear to have been above the school 
level. That said, they were all the "first" of their kind and their reputation is undocumented. 
The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether 
eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the time the petition is filed. See 
8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a 
material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
The petitioner's failure to provide evidence regarding the significance of these events, such 
as media coverage of these events or programs listing the number, age and status of 
competitors, precludes a finding that the petitioner meets this criterion. Moreover, the record 
lacks evidence of the petitioner's service as a judge after 2002. Thus, the evidence is not 
indicative of sustained acclaim in 2007 when the petition was filed. 
On motion, counsel does not address the AAO's findings directly and the petitioner does not submit 
any further evidence for this criterion. Rather, counsel briefly summarizes the submitted evidence 
and asserts that the positions held by the petitioner in various competitions are "indicative of his 
sustained national or international acclaim." Although the petitioner's judging certificates appear to 
meet the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), there is no 
supporting evidence documenting the reputation of the competitions being judged so as to establish 
that the petitioner's participation as judge is commensurate with the requirements of this 
classification. For example, there is no evidence establishing that the petitioner's activities involved 
judging top athletes in notable event categories with a significant pool of national or international 
competitors. Participation as a judge for an obscure competition or for an event category with a 
narrow field of competitors of unknown skill level is not indicative of national or international 
acclaim at the very top of the field. Moreover, the AAO's appellate decision noted that the record 
lacks evidence of the petitioner's participation as a judge in competitions after 2002. Accordingly, 
we reaffirm our finding that the submitted evidence does not establish that the petitioner's national or 
international acclaim has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
8 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)(iv) is not consistent with sustained national or international acclaim as of the date of 
filing this petition and there is no further evidence under this criterion or the other criteria 
documenting the petitioner's national or international acclaim in the years immediately preceding the 
filing date. 
With regard to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii), although the petitioner was 
found to have met this criterion, there is no supporting evidence showing that the petitioner 
continued to perform in a leading or critical role for the Nepal Wushu Association or any other 
distinguished organization in the years immediately preceding the petition's filing date. Accordingly, 
the submitted evidence does not establish that the petitioner's national or international acclaim has been 
sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(viii) is not consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim as of the date of filing this petition and there is no further 
evidence under this criterion or the other criteria documenting the petitioner's national or 
international acclaim in the years immediately preceding the filing date. 
In this case, the specific deficiencies in the documentation pertaining to the remaining regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. $8 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (v) and (ix) have already been addressed. The submitted 
evidence for these criteria is not indicative of the petitioner's sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of his field. For instance, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has 
received a high salary or other remuneration commensurate with being among that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of his field. 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. fj 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 eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
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 AAO's August 4,2009 decision dismissing the appeal is affirmed. The petition will 
remain denied.