dismissed EB-1A Case: Mechanical Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: 
JUL1 4 £015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., 
N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(IXA) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our decision 
and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Motions must be 
filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. The Form I-
290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing location, and other 
requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
w~ ~llonll:senberg 
U Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in mechanical 
engineering, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), which makes visas available to individuals who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which 
requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief with additional documentation. For the reasons discussed 
below, we agree that the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time 
achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner 
has not demonstrated that the beneficiary is one of the small percentage who is at the very top in the 
field of endeavor, and that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the individual's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the individual's achievements in 
the field through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient 
qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (fmding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether 
the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
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. 
At the initial filing of the petition, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary's eligibility as an "alien of 
extraordinary ability" was met through comparable evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4) that requires "[i]fthe above standards [8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)] do not readily apply 
to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility." In addition, the petitioner submitted foreign language documents without 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner 
claims to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
certified English language translations pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b) that requires 
"[a]ny document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full 
English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the 
translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English." 
Although the petitioner submitted a single certified translation, it is unclear which documents, if any, to 
which the certification pertains. The submission of a single translation certification that does not 
identify the document or documents it purportedly accompanies does not meet the requirements of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) and has no probative value. 
The director issued a request for evidence (RFE) and informed the petitioner that it had 
not established 
that the regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation and how the documentary evidence can be considered comparable to the 
regu1atory categories of evidence. Furthermore, the director indicated that all foreign language 
documents must be accompanied by full translations that have been certified as complete and accurate, 
and that the translator has certified that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language 
into English. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner made no mention of the beneficiary's eligibility based 
on comparable evidence, nor did the petitioner submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that 
the regulatory categories of evidence do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation and how the 
documentary evidence can be considered as comparable. Rather, the petitioner asserted that the 
beneficiary met the published material criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In addition, the petitioner did not submit any certified English language translations for the previously 
submitted foreign language documents. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish the beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that comparable evidence needs to be considered, and there was 
published material about the beneficiary in an article in Moderno Plastico in February 2009. 
Regarding comparable evidence, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that evidence of 
sustained national or international acclaim "shall" include evidence of a one-time achievement or 
evidence of at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility 
requirements. The ten categories in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every 
criterion will apply to every occupation. For example, the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
implicitly applies to the visual arts, and the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) expressly applies to the 
performing arts. It is clear from the use of the word "shall" in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) that the rule, not 
the exception, is that the petitioner must submit evidence to meet at least three of the regulatory 
criteria. Thus, the petitioner must explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to the 
beneficiary's occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence 
required at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter 
ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no 
indication that eligibility for visa preference in the beneficiary's occupation as a mechanical engineer 
cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In fact, 
regarding this criterion, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary has had published material about him. 
An inability to meet a criterion, however, is not necessarily evidence that the criterion does not apply to 
the beneficiary's occupation. Where a beneficiary is simply unable to meet or submit documentary 
evidence ofthree ofthese criteria, the plain language ofthe regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not 
allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Furthermore, the petitioner submitted advisory opinion statements from Dr. and Dr. 
who indicated that the beneficiary is an "alien of extraordinary ability." A review 
of the advisory opinions reflects that they were asked by the petitioner to review selected documentary 
evidence and provide their professional opinions. It does not appear that they were aware of the 
beneficiary prior to being contacted by the petitioner. Their determination that the beneficiary is an 
"alien of extraordinary ability" is not based on their prior knowledge of him or his work but merely on 
the evaluation of the documents given to them by the petitioner. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See 
Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding the beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Id The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the beneficiary's 
eligibility. See id at 795-796; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that 
expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the 
references' statements and how they became aware of the beneficiary's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an individual in support 
of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence. Cf Visinscaia v. 
Beers, F. Supp.3d at 134-135 (concluding that USCIS' decision to give little weight to uncorroborated 
assertions from professionals in the field was not arbitrary and capricious). 
Regarding the requirements for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the regulation requires "[p]ublished material 
about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the alien's 
work in the field for which classification is sought." In general, in order for published material to meet 
this criterion, it must be about the beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should 
have significant national or international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local community papers. Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that "[s]uch evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the 
material, and any necessary translation." 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted an uncertified and partial 
translation of a screenshot from entitled, '' 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
" The document, indicating that it was written by 
is undated. The screenshot is about a blow molding machine and is not about the 
beneficiruy. In fact, the beneficiruy is never mentioned in the article. As such, the petitioner has not 
submitted published material about the beneficiruy relating to his work consistent with the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Moreover, the petitioner submitted an uncertified translation of a screenshot from 
the publisher of indicating that the magazine has a monthly circulation of 14,800. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of circulation statistics for the magazine but did not submit any 
documentruy evidence regarding the website on which the article appeared; the petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the article was published in the magazine. Regardless, the petitioner did not submit 
independent, objective evidence demonstrating that the magazine is a professional or major trade 
publication. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 
(9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's 
status is not reliant evidence of major media). Regarding: , in today's world, 
many publications, regardless of size and distribution, post at least some of their stories on the Internet, 
with a potentially global reach. To ignore this reality would be to render the "major media" 
requirement meaningless. The petitioner did not establish that international accessibility by itself is a 
realistic indicator of whether a given website is "major media." The petitioner did not submit any 
documentary evidence demonstrating that _ is considered major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that the article was published in a professional or major 
trade publication or other major media. 
As discussed above, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires 
"[p ]ublished material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought." In this case, the petitioner's 
documentary evidence does not reflect published material about the beneficiruy relating to his work in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiruy meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
A review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the petitioner asserted the beneficiruy's 
eligibility for this criterion at the time of the original filing of the petition or in response to the director's 
RFE. On appeal, however, the petitioner is now asserting beneficiruy's eligibility for this criterion 
based on comparable evidence. 
Although the petitioner indicates on appeal that comparable evidence should be considered, the 
petitioner did not explain why the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) is not readily applicable to the 
beneficiary's occupation and how the documentation should be considered comparable to the criterion. 
For the n~asons previously discussed, comparable evidence cannot be considered for this criterion, and 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
we will determine whether the beneficiary meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) that requires "[e]vidence ofthe alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field." Here, the evidence must rise to the 
level of original contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is 
not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multifle Investor Fund, L.P., 51 
F. 3d 28,31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quotedinAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2" Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
On appeal, the petitioner indicates that while the beneficiary was employed at 
, he was in charge of the main project of creating a three piece lipstick container. 
The record of proceeding contains an uncertified translation of a letter from 
Commercial Director of . who indicated that the project resulted in a joint patent between the 
beneficiary and Mr. did not provide any further details regarding the 
significance of the lipstick container invention in the field beyond being issued a patent. A patent is not 
necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree of influence over the field as a 
whole. See Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 n. 7, 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by­
case basis. Id. A patent recognizes the originality of the idea, but it does not demonstrate that the 
beneficiary made a contribution of major significance in the field through his development of this idea. 
In the case here, the petitioner did not establish that his patent or invention has been of major 
significance in the field. 
The petitioner also asserts on appeal that the petitioner was in charge of developing an automatic blow 
molding machine called while employed at . 
1. A review of the record of proceeding reflects that that the petitioner submitted uncertified 
translations of reference letters from employees of including 
Significantly, all 
of the letters either contain identical language or virtually the same language when describing the 
beneficiary's involvement with the blow molding machine, suggesting the language in the letters is not 
the authors' own. Cf Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 
2006) (upholding an immigration judge's adverse credibility determination in asylum proceedings 
based in part 
on the similarity of some of the affidavits); Mei Chai Ye v. US. Dept. of Justice, 489 F.3d 
517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007) (concluding that an immigration judge may reasonably infer that when an 
asylum applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is the common source). 
Nevertheless, the letters offer no evidence, beyond that the first machine was assembled and sold in 
May 2001, and assertions that the beneficiary's involvement with the blow molding machine reflects an 
original contribution of major significance in the field. The letters, for example, do not indicate the 
impact or influence the machine has had on the field so to demonstrate that it has been of major 
significance in the field as a whole rather than limited to Although the petitioner submitted 
the blueprints and promotional material for the machine, the petitioner did not submit any documentary 
evidence reflecting that the machine is considered an original contribution of major significance in the 
field consistent with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDEm DECISION 
Page 8 
Without additional, specific evidence showing that the beneficiary's work has been unusually 
influential, widely applied throughout the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of 
major significance, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets the plain language of 
this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary 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 director determined that the petitioner did not establish the beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion. 
Specifically, the director found that although the beneficiary performed in a leading role for Multipet 
and for the petitioner, the petitioner did not demonstrate that they have a distinguished reputation. 
Although we will ultimately uphold the director's finding that the petitioner did not establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion, we will withdraw the director's fmding that the beneficiary 
performed in a leading role for Multipet and the petitioner. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[ e ]vidence that the alien 
has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished 
reputation." In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in 
which the beneficiary contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the 
organization or establishment's activities. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on his employment with 
the petitioner. The petitioner indicates that as the chief engineer, the beneficiary was in charge of the 
entire m~mufacturing process and overseeing all departments and personnel. The petitioner further 
asserts that when the beneficiary was employed by the petitioner, the company had launched three new 
products to the market resulting in the tripling of the company's revenues and increased the company's 
existing lines. The petitioner, however, does not address the director's issue regarding the distinguished 
reputation of Multipet or the petitioner. Therefore, this issue is abandoned. See Sepulveda v. US. Atty 
Gen., 401l F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 
4711885, at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (finding the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed 
to raise them on appeal). 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that at the initial filing of the petition on July 9, 2009, the 
petitioner submitted a letter asserting that the beneficiary was responsible for launching three new 
products to the market "which will triple our revenues as well as increase output of our existing line." 
In addition, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary added nine new employees to the company, and 
the company increased its sales by 31% and net profit by 77%. The petitioner, however, submitted no 
documentary evidence, including marketing reports, to support its assertions. In fact, the petitioner did 
not submit any evidence, such as an organizational chart or paystubs, supporting its assertion that it had 
employed the beneficiary, in any capacity. Statements made without supporting documentation are of 
limited probative value and are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page9 
ofSojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Moreover, depending on the specificity, detail, and credibility of a 
letter, USCIS may give the document more or less persuasive weight in a proceeding. The Board of 
Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply because it is 
"self-serving." See, e.g., Matter ofS-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing cases). The Board 
also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative testimonial 
and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or 
credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 
21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
For these reasons, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has performed in a leading or 
critical role for the organization. Moreover, although the petitioner did not address the issue regarding 
its distinguished reputation, a review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted 
screenshots from its website reflecting advertisements of various firearms. The screenshots, however, 
provide no evidence that the petitioner enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
Regarding as previously discussed, the petitioner submitted several uncertified translations of 
letters reflecting identical language that have no evidentiary weight. Furthermore, the letters simply 
indicate that the beneficiary invented the blow molding machine. The letters do not indicate the 
beneficiary's duties and responsibilities while employed by so as to demonstrate that the 
beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role. The lack of detailed information does not establish 
that the beneficiary's role was either leading or critical at Moreover, the record of proceeding 
contains screenshots from website reflecting a general overview of the company but offers 
no evidence of its distinguished reputation. In addition, the petitioner did not submit any other 
documentation establishing that the . has a distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration/or services, in relation to others in the field 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires "[e]vidence that the alien has 
commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in 
the field." 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted a copy of the beneficiary's 2013 W-2 from 
reflecting $139,608.02 in wages. In addition, the petitioner 
submitted the beneficiary's paystub, dated September 19, 2014, reflecting employment by' The 
director fuund that the documentary evidence postdated the filing of the petition and could not be 
considered. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date 
after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 17 5 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
(Comm'r 1998). That decision, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), further 
provides that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a 
petition." Id at 176. In addition, the director found that the petitioner did not submit any documentary 
evidence that compared the beneficiary's salary to others in his field, so as to demonstrate that the 
beneficiru:y commanded a high salary. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits screenshots from www.bls.gov reflecting that the mean annual wage 
for mechanical engineers in 2013 was $85,930 and the 90th percentile earns $123,340. Again, the 
petition was filed on July 9, 2009, and earnings that postdate the filing of the petition cannot be 
considered to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. The petitioner also submits screenshots from 
reflecting that the average starting salary for mechanical engineers in 2009 was 
$66,158. According to part six on the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form 1-140), the petitioner 
indicated that the beneficiary's wages per week were $2,675. The petitioner, however, did not submit 
any documentru:y evidence regarding the beneficiary's salary in 2009. Statements made without 
supporting documentation are of limited probative value and are not sufficient to meet the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). As the petitioner submits evidence of salaries in 2009, the petitioner 
must submit 
evidence of his salru:y in 2009. Again, the petitioner previously submitted evidence of the 
beneficiary's salary from 2013 and 2014. Moreover, the screenshots only reflect average salaries and 
do not identify the high end salaries for those performing work with similar responsibilities as the 
beneficiary. The plain language of the regulation requires the petitioner to establish the beneficiru:y's 
salary is high when compared to others in the field. As such, average statistics do not meet this 
requirem€mt. Furthermore, the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiru:y's employment with 
is in the mechanical engineering field; the petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence, such as 
a job lett€:r confirming the beneficiru:y's position, reflecting that the beneficiary was employed by · 
as a mechanical engineer. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of "a high salary or other significantly 
high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for 
comparison showing that the beneficiary's earnings were high in relation to others in his field. The 
record contains no objective earnings data showing that the petitioner has earned a "high salary" or 
"significantly high remuneration" in comparison with those performing similar work during the same 
time period. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a 
professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 
965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. 
INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salru:y ofNHL defensive player to salary of 
other NHL defensemen). 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiru:y meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
A review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the petitioner asserted the beneficiary's 
eligibility for this criterion at the time of the original filing of the petition or in response to the director's 
RFE. On appeal, however, the petitioner is now asserting beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion 
based on comparable evidence. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that it "has enjoyed commercial success when looking at the success of 
[the beneficiary's] developments, which are similar to counting tickets sold or box office earnings." 
The petitioner references its previously 
discussed letter in which it asserted that the company increased 
sales by 31% and net profits by 77% in 2008, and the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary's three piece 
lipstick container was so successful it is still used today. 
For the reasons previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets the 
requirements for comparable evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). Moreover, 
the petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence to support its assertions regarding its sales and 
profits. Statements made without supporting documentation are of limited probative value and are not 
sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). 
Finally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) requires "[e]vidence of 
commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, 
compact disk, or video sales." The beneficiary is not a performing artist; rather the beneficiary is a 
mechanical engineer. The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not 
every 
criterion will apply to every occupation. As the beneficiary's occupation is not "in the performing arts," 
the petitioner's evidence does not meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim 
and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) 
and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the proper 
conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting 
evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) and (4). 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of fmal merits 
determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a finding that 
the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification sought.2 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. at 128. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 
We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep't of Justice, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C .F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii); see also INA 
§§ 103(aX1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.l(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).