dismissed EB-1A Case: Petroleum Engineering

U.S. Department of fIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~ 
invasion of persona1 privsg, 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
*&.o 
"8 gd 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: SfP 1 2 200f 
SRC 05 264 53072 
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. $ 1 153(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. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 ths 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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 1991). As used in 
this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2). The 
specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the 
petitioner must show that she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on September 29, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as an Application Engineer Adviser in the petroleum industry. At the time of filing, the petitioner was 
employed by Incorporated's Centrilift Division managing technical support for the company's 
electrical submersible pump products for the deepwater petroleum industry. 
On appeal, counsel states: "The self-petitioner respectfully submits that [CIS] should have applied the regulations 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) and that if that regulation is applied then the evidence presented does indeed show 
that she has reached the very top of her profession as contemplated for an extraordinary ability alien." The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence," but only if the ten 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." Therefore, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that these criteria are not applicable to petroleum engineers. In this proceeding, 
counsel has previously argued that the petitioner meets at least four of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). Further, the petitioner submitted evidence relating to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$9 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v), (vi), and (ix). Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) does not allow 
for the submission of comparable evidence. 
In this decision, we will first address the petitioner's evidence as it relates to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3). We will then address counsel's argument that the petitioner has submitted comparable 
evidence to establish eligibility for extraordinary ability classification pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(4). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of 
which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted an April 4, 2003 letter addressed to her from Chairman, President 
and Chief Executive Officer, ~ncor~orated, stating: 
The Chairman's Award honors a select group of employees for their extraordinary contribution to 
~m~lo~ees receiving this award embody our Core Values and Keys to Success. We 
want to congratulate you on being selected as a recipient for recognition under this program. 
This award symbolizes your dedication, personal sacrifice and commitment to the company. 
We find that this award from the petitioner's immediate employer reflects institutional recognition rather than 
national or international recognition. 
The petitioner also submitted material printed from the January 18, 2002 issue This Week @ Baker Hughes, 
an online weekly newsletter "distributed electronically for employees throughout the company." This 
material states: 
Welcome to This Week @ Baker Hughes, presenting key developments and news about BHI [Baker 
Hughes Incorporated] divisions to help keep you informed about our progress, strengths and 
successes throughout the enterprise. 
Success Stories from Baker Hughes Companies 
Centrilift Brazil recently signed a two-year contract with Petrobas to perform well testing deep 
water using ESP's. The testing is to commence in Q1 and will be performed throughout the 
Campos Basin near Macae, Brazil. This is an aggressive testing program to produce wells in 
water depths from 2,000 to 9,500 ft. (610 to 2900 m). The objectives are to identify reservoir and 
fluid properties and develop the technology and operational expertise that will be need for long- 
term production. The Project Leader is [the petitioner] and Project Support provided by Floyd 
Ireland. 
Eight additional "Success Stories" about Baker Hughes Incorporated's various divisions were included in the 
January 18, 2002 issue. The plain language of this criterion requires documentation of petitioner's receipt of 
"prizes or awards." We do not find that a brief mention of the petitioner's name appearing in a weekly 
internal company newsletter constitutes her receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence in her field of endeavor. The preceding material is far more relevant to the "published 
material about the alien" criterion at 8 C.F.R. €j 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and it will be further addressed there. 
The petitioner also submitted documents entitled "BHI CHAIRMAN'S HS&E [Health, Safety and 
Environment] EXCELLENCE AWARD 2003 CRITERIA" and "FY [Fiscal Year] 2003 BHI CHAIRMAN7 S 
HS&E EXCELLENCE AWARD NOMINATION FORM." Neither document specifically identifies the 
petitioner as a 2003 Chairman's HS&E Excellence Award recipient. Even if the petitioner had provided first- 
hand evidence establishing her receipt of this award from her employer, we find that it reflects institutional 
recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alienk work in the field for which class$cation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in 
the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as 
major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would 
not earn acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the 
Page 5 
New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of 
significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.' 
The petitioner submitted the aforementioned material printed from the January 18, 2002 issue This Week @ 
Baker Hughes, an online internal company newsletter, which mentions her name once. We do not find that this 
internal publication qualifies as "professional or major trade publications or other major media." Further, the 
author of the material was not identified as required by this criterion. 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of Baker Hughes Incorporated's "2003 Annual Report and Proxy Statement" 
which includes a photograph of the petitioner and a two-sentence quote fiom her on page 7. The 2003 Annual 
Report is primarily about the company's financial status rather than the petitioner or her engineering 
achievements. This material, which is not the result of independent journalistic reportage, cannot serve to 
meet this criterion. The author of the material was not identified as required by this criterion and there is no 
evidence that the report qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a January 18,2006 letter fiom counsel 
listing six papers authored by the petitioner as evidence for this criterion. The papers authored by the petitioner, 
however, relate to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. €j 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and will be 
addressed there. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientz$c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted four letters of support from her professional contacts. 
I met [the petitioner] in 2002, through professional contacts I have within BakerIHughes - Centrilift 
of Brazil, seeking the implementation of new technologies to aid in the production of offshore oil 
fields. 
She was the primary resource from , Centrilift Division for engineering and application 
of Electric Submersible Pumps (ESP's) in our offshore oil fields and also with regard to Subsea 
Technology. The impact of her technical work in the Deep Water, Subsea markets has been 
fundamental in providing Petrobras applications support for ESPs in deepwater completions. 
1 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 6 
Due to her outstanding job as the main Electric Submersible Pump resource to Petrobras she was 
transferred to the United States to accept an engineering position in Oklahoma where she is working 
on complex ESP applications including highly technical Deep Water, Subsea applications. 
Her academic credentials are excellent, with a master's degree in civil engineering (emphasis on 
reservoir mechanics) and she also holds an MBA in Petroleum Industry Economics. In the past 
several years she has filed for two patents in the United States and written a number of papers for 
presentation to organizations such as the Society of Petroleum Engineers and VI International 
Conference on Application of Stress Wave Theory to Piles. Her education and experience easily 
place her in the top 5% of her profession world wide. 
Considering her intelligence and work ethic I have recommended her for a Ph.D. program at the Tulsa 
University Artificial Lift Program, which is recognized as a global leader in advanced Petroleum 
studies. To confidently explore and produce deepwater fields the industry will need more skilled 
people like [the petitioner]. 
Therefore, I would highly recommend her acceptance as a permanent resident in the United States so 
that she can better pursue her engineering studies. 
President and Chief Operating Officer, Red River Automation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, states: 
In Dec. of 1999, I began my association with [the petitioner] in Brazil where I was the Country 
Manager for Baker Hughes and she was a recently hired applications engineer for our Electric 
Submersible Pump (ESP) Division. Her responsibilities at that time were to provide in-depth 
engineering assistance to our sales and service groups as well as interface with clients on matters of 
well bore application and reliability. She quickly distinguished herself within our organization and 
became our primary resource for complex engineering and application issues particularly with regard 
to Subsea Technology. The impact of her technical work in the Deep Water, Subsea markets was 
recognized by Baker Hughes Senior Management and in 2003 she was invited to accept an 
engineering position here in the United States. Currently she is one of only 3 people with in the Baker 
Hughes organization that is dedicated to highly technical Deep Water, Subsea applications due to the 
complexities involved. World wide there are probably only 20 within the ESP industry. In the past 
several years she has filed for two patents and written a number of papers for presentation to industry 
organizations such as the Society of Petroleum Engineers. The demand for her time and guidance by 
clients and other Baker Hughes Departments is a tremendous testament to her value and place her in 
the top few percent of her profession world wide. 
Throughout the time I have known her she has always exhibited a high level of integrity, intelligence 
and a superior work ethic. In recent years she has been working on the development of deepwater 
applications which have never been designed any where else in the world. Due to the complexities 
involved, and the absence of any experience base to draw on with in the industry, she is applying for a 
Ph.D. program at the University of Tulsa. The United States Congress recently passed the Energy 
Bill, which specifically targets Deep Water, Subsea technology development. It is my opinion that 
[the petitioner's] skill sets are exactly what are needed to develop Deep Water, Subsea technology 
within the United States. 
Her acceptance as a permanent resident in the United States will allow her more flexibility to pursue 
her engineering studies . . . . 
two patents and written a number of papers for presentation." 
 Regarding the two patent disclosures 
coauthored by the petitioner, we find no evidence showing that either of these inventions represents a 
contribution of major significance in the petitioner's field. We note here that anyone may file a patent 
disclosure application, regardless of whether the invention constitutes a major contribution. The record 
includes no evidence showing that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued 
patents for her technological innovations. Given the amount of patent applications that the USPTO receives 
on an annual basis, we find it implausible that simply filing an application for a patent automatically qualifies 
as a contribution of major significance in one's field. In this case, there is no evidence showing substantial 
commercial interest in the petitioner's inventions or evidence of their widespread utilization. Without 
evidence of their substantial national or international impact, we cannot conclude that the petitioner's 
inventions meet this criterion. 
Western Hemisphere General Manager for Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP) Systems, 
Weatherford, Midland, Texas, states: 
My acquaintance with [the petitioner] has been on a professional basis through the Society of 
Petroleum Engineers where she has made several presentations on work she has done in Latin 
America relative to complex ESP completions. She is articulate and passionate about her work which 
is now in the Deepwater, Subsea application of ESPs, an area that has little or no other expertise. I 
therefore rate her in the top 3% or her profession and fully recommend her for permanent resident in 
the United States. 
Regarding the papers presented by the petitioner, we note that any technical research, in order to be accepted 
for publication or presentation, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not 
follow that every engineer who performs original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge or who 
incrementally improves an existing technology has inherently made a contribution of major significance to the 
field as a whole. In this instance, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's work has attracted a 
significant level of attention beyond her employer or her professional acquaintances. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(v), the petitioner'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. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of 
science or engineering, it can be expected that the petitioner's technical innovations would have already been 
widely utilized or confirmed by independent experts throughout her field. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge 
the impact of the petitioner's work. Without evidence showing that the technical papers coauthored by the 
petitioner have significantly influenced her field (such as frequent citation of her work), we cannot conclude 
that this work qualifies as an original contribution of major significance. The petitioner must demonstrate not 
only that she has presented original work, but also that it has impacted the field such that it can be considered 
indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Nevertheless, the papers coauthored by the petitioner relate to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and 
distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and original 
contributions of major significance, CIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. If evidence 
sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an 
alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. We will fully address the papers coauthored by the 
petitioner under the next criterion. 
Petroleum Engineering Department, The University of Tulsa, states: 
My experience with [the petitioner] dates back to a couple at years ago when she contacted me asking 
for information on our Ph.D. program. At this time she was working for Baker Hughes in Brazil 
- - - - 
providing service to Petrobras. I contacted 
 colleague of mine from Petrobras 
who was working directly with [the 
 informed me how she was decided 
[sic] to pursue graduate studies. This was soon confirmed when [the petitioner] was transferred to 
Claremore in the United States. She visited me a couple of times and we discussed the possibility of 
her Ph.D. program. Pursuing a Ph.D. program part time while working is not an easy task and I must 
say that [the petitioner] impressed me by her firm decision on investing in her education and her 
willingness to overcome the difficulties. 
I am aware that [the petitioner] was granted permission from Baker Hughes to pursue her graduate 
studies. I am also aware that Baker Hughes will be sponsoring [the petitioner's] studies at [tlhe 
University of Tulsa, which is a sign that the company values [the petitioner's] technical qualities and 
is willing to invest the time and money required for her professional advance. 
Throughout the time I have known her she has always exhibited a high level of integrity and 
intelligence. Her acceptance as a permanent resident in the United States will allow her more 
flexibility to pursue her engineering studies. 
-1's letter indicates that the petitioner intends to pursue graduate studies at the 
University of Tulsa, but his letter does not state that the petitioner stands at the very top of her field, nor does 
it identify any original contributions of major significance directly attributable to the petitioner. 
We note that the four letters of support submitted by the petitioner consist entirely of her professional 
contacts. With regard to the personal recommendation of the petitioner's direct acquaintances, the source 
of the recommendations is a highly relevant consideration. These letters are not first-hand evidence that the 
petitioner has earned sustained acclaim for her contributions outside of those with whom she has interacted. 
The statutory requirement that an alien have "sustained national or international acclaim," however, necessitates 
evidence of recognition beyond those close to the petitioner. In this case, the record does not indicate the extent 
of the petitioner's influence on others in the petroleum engineering field, nor does it show that this field has 
somehow changed as a result of her work. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's 
work has been unusually influential or highly acclaimed throughout the greater field, we cannot conclude that 
she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that she has coauthored papers for presentation to organizations 
such as the Society of Petroleum Engineers. In the fields of science and engineering, we find that acclaim is 
generally not established by the mere act of presenting one's work at a conference. The record includes no 
documentation demonstrating that the presentation of one's work is unusual in the petitioner's field or that the 
invitation to present at conferences where the petitioner spoke was a privilege extended to only a few top 
engineers. Many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposia to present new work, discuss 
new findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are promoted and sponsored by 
professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. Participation in such 
events, however, does not elevate the petitioner above almost all others in her field at the national or 
international level. The record includes no evidence distinguishing the petitioner from others in her field such 
as evidence showing that her presentations had significantly higher rates of attendance when compared to 
those of the other conference participants or that the petitioner has served as a keynote speaker at a national 
engineering conference. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence of an article she coauthored appearing in the March 2004 issue of 
Hart's E&P. The record, however, includes no evidence (such as circulation statistics for Hart's E&P) 
showing that the preceding examples constitute authorship in "professional or major trade publications or 
other major media." Therefore, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signLficantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in thefield. 
The petitioner submitted her Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, reflecting that she earned $71,247.87 in 
2004 and documentation reflecting her participation in Cetrili 
 ompensation Program. The 
petitioner also submitted a February 18, 2003 letter from Manager of Research and 
Development Engineering, Centnlift Division, Baker Hughes Incorporated, stating: "Congratulations on the 
filing of the patent disclosure 60/405,272 titled "Well Pump Capsule," which lists you as an inventor/(co- 
inventor). In accordance with Centrilift policy P-A-22, "Patent and Technical Achievement Awards," the 
$400 award sum will be included in your next payroll check . . . ." 
The plain language of this criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of a "high salary . . . in relation 
to others in the field." The petitioner offers no national wage statistics as a basis for comparison showing that 
her compensation was significantly high in relation to others in her field. There is no evidence that the petitioner 
earns a level of compensation that places her among the highest paid petroleum engineers in the industry. Thus, 
the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Page 10 
In this case, we concur with the director's findings that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a 
major internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge these findings. 
Other comparable evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(4) states: 
 ''V the above standards do not readily apply to the 
beneficiavy's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility." [emphasis added]. As previously noted on page 3 of this decision, the regulatory language 
precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for 
visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). However, we will address counsel's argument that reliance upon 
recommendation letters written by individuals in the petitioner's field is sufficient to demonstrate that she 
meets the requirements of section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. 
Page 5 of counsel's appellate brief states: 
The self-petitioner respectfully submits that she qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability and is 
able to prove that by showing comparable evidence such as the letters submitted with the original 
petition written by people in the petitioner's field of endeavor which state that the petitioner is at the 
very top of her field of endeavors [sic]. In Buletini v. I.N.S. (E.D. Mich. 1994)' the legislative history 
indicates that "INS must consult with peer groups in the alien's field prior to determining eligibility." 
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 matters arising within the same 
district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district 
judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the AAO, the analysis does not 
have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. Nevertheless, we find that the instant petition is easily 
distinguished fi-om the facts in Buletini v. NS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994). In the matter cited by 
counsel, the court found that the alien had established eligibility by submitting evidence showing that he met 
at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3), whereas in the present case counsel asserts 
that the petitioner has established eligibility pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) through the 
submission of letters of recommendation written by individuals in her field of endeavor. 
Counsel's appellate brief further states: "The petitioner respectfully submits that she has submitted peer 
group letters stating that she is in the top 3% percent of her field of endeavor and the CIS [sic] seems to have 
ignored the letters presented. The CIS [sic] failure to consider such letters is clear evidence that it did not 
adequately evaluate the facts before it." 
Of the four letters submitted by the 
"in the top 3% or her profession." 
 "education and 
experience easily place her in the 
 letter states that the 
petitioner is in the "top few percent of her profession." None of the preceding individuals identify the source 
of the occupational data they utilized in reaching their conclusions about where the petitioner stands relative 
Page 11 
indicating that the petitioner has reached the top of her profession. CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. However, where an opinion is in accord with other 
information, not corroborated, or is in any way questionable, CIS is not required to accept or may give less 
weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791 (Comm. 1988). See also Matter of 
Sof$ci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
While three of the four individuals offering recommendation letters assert that the petitioner has reached the 
top of her profession, additional statements included in the letters of support appear to contradict this 
conclusion. For exam~le. thc 
bl state that the petitioner seeks to pursue graduate studies in engineering at 
letter specifically commends the petitioner for her willingness "to invest 
the time and money required for her professional advance." If the petitioner seeks to pursue graduate studies 
in her field, then the question necessarily arises as to whether she has indeed reached the top of her field. The 
petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for aliens already at the top of their respective 
fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. See 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(h)(2). 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 791, 795. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. 
Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are 
important considerations. In this instance, we note that the four letters of support submitted by the petitioner 
originated from her professional acquaintances. 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 
achievements and recognition that one would expect of an engineer who has sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
While the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(4) permits "comparable evidence" where the ten criteria do not 
"readily apply" to the alien's occupation, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(4) neither states nor implies that 
letters of support attesting to the petitioner's achievements and standing in the field are "comparable" to the shct 
documentation requirements in the regulations setting forth the ten criteria. We find that the petitioner's reliance 
on four recommendation letters prepared in support of the petition rather than contemporaneous evidence of 
her achievements and recognition is misplaced. Pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, the 
classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim, and 
the petitioner cannot arbitrarily replace such evidence with attestations from the petitioner's professional 
contacts who assert that she has reached the top of her field. The commentary for the proposed regulations 
implementing section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act provides that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be 
set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more 
extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 
The classification sought by the petitioner therefore requires specific documentation beyond mere testimony. An 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce ample unsolicited materials 
reflecting that acclaim. We find that evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries 
greater weight than letters of support prepared especially for submission with the petition. Further, the 
statutory requirement that an alien have "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of 
recognition beyond those close to the petitioner. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her 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. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed: