dismissed EB-1A Case: Policy Analyst

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 2 2 2013 
.IN RE: · Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVIOE CENTER 
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 
PETITION: · Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Immigration and !Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please fmd the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
I 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concetmng your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in rLching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a! motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
. I 
·in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found a~ 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not f"l.le any motion 
I 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed I . 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
·Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Adffiinistrative Appeals Office 
www .uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
- .. 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant vi
1
sa 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. · · I · . 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
I 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in business as. a policy ahalyst. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinmfy ability and failed to submit extensive 
documentation of his sustained national or international arlclaim. · 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extrlrdinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the "petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustahled national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievclnents. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international! acClaim through evidence of a one:-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
I 
regulation outlines ten categories .of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence uhder at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility reqiliirements. 
On appeal, counsel .asserts that the petitio~er meets Je regulatory categories of evidence at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) - (vi). Counsel also re4uests that "should the Administrative 
Appeals Office agree with the Service's handling of the
1 
above criteria, the petitioner would like 
the Service to consider [the petitioner's] entire subm'ission" as comparable evidence of his 
extraordinary ability pursuant to the regulation at sl C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). For the reasons 
discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's decision. 
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 
I 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
I . 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if-- . I 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, 
arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained natiohal or international 
acclaim and whose achievements Have been recognized 
in the field through extensive docwhentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to. enter-the UnitL States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary aHility, and 
(b)(6)
- ,, 
Page3 
{tii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially ben~fit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) ank legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congresk intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordihary ability. See H.R. 723 10151 Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29
1
, 1991). The terin "extraordinary ability'' 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. Id.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievbents in the field. Such acclaim must be 
I 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of quali~g evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(k). . . · 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuJ (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in 
part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the 
petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluatio~ of evidence submitted to meet a given 
evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 Ci.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court 
concluded that while users may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
evidence submitted to meet those two · criteria, those boncerns should have been raised in a 
subsequent "final merits determination." Jd, at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the 
AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
I 
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 protided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petiti~ner failed to submit su~cient evidence, "the properj ~nclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requrrement of three types of evtdence (as the AAO concluded)." ld. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). j 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a· two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plainJanguage requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is th.at the petitioner 
has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three th>es of evidence. !d. 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements . I 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i\;) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Crileria2 
Published material about the alien in professionL ~r major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in ~he field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, datk, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be about the petitioner and, 
as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional of major trade publications or other major 
media. The AAO notes that the petitioner did not initially claim eligibility for this regulatory 
criterion. The director concluded that the articles subm!itted for this criterion in response to the 
director's request for evidence were · either not aboJt the petitioner or did not appear in 
professional or major trade publications or other major ciedia. . I 
The petitioner submitted two articles in 
With regard to the latter article, the petitioner subrhitted only the first page of the three-page 
article. Further, the English language translation accorrlpanying the latter article was not a full 
translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § II03.2(b)(3). Any document containing 
foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accempanied by a full English language 
translation that the translator has certified as completb and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate frorh the foreign language into English. Id. 
The petitioner also submitted infonnation from 1 rlemonstratin that ,____,~~-· 
is a forin of major media. While the preceding aiticles in include some 
. I 
quotes from the petitioner, they are not about him. Instea9, the articles are about a 
The plain 
languag; of the reguiation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3){iii) require; that the published material be 
I 
"about the alien ... relating to the alien's work in the field." Thus, an article that mentions the 
petitioner but is "about" someone or something else cann6t qualify under the plain language of this 
. I 
regulation. See Noroozi v. Napolitano, II CV 8333 PAE, 20I2 WL 55I0934 at *I, *9 (S.D.N.Y. 
Nov. I4, 2012); also see generally Negro-Plumpe V. o!&n, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D . . 
Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles abo¥t a show or a character within a show are 
not about the perfonner). Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3~(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers 
or professors pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(B) of the Act (tequiring evidence of published material 
simply "about the 
alien's work"). . · I · . 
The petitioner submitted an article by 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regula~ory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. I 
(b)(6)Page5 
) and posted on the : 
but there' is no documentary evidence showing that 
qualify as professional or major trade publications or other major media. Regardless, the ' 
. artiCle is not abouf the petitioner and only mentions him in 
passing. Instead, the article is about the 
The petitioner submitted an article entitled that 
was posted at but the date and author of the material were not 
identified as required by the plain language of the ~egulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Further, there is no documentary evidence showing that qualifies as a 
professional or major trade publication or some other forrrt of major media. In addition, the material 
is not about the petitioner. Instead, the material is aboht an article on 
I 
As previously discussed, the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be 
"about the alien" relating to his work rather than simply atiout the petitioner's work. 
I 
article entitled The petitioner submitted a 
~ 
that was posted at 
not about the petitioner. Instead, the article is about 
Further, there is no documentary evidence showing that 
a professional or major, trade publication or some other form of major media. 
_ I 
The netitioner submitted an article entitled 
but the article is 
qualifies as 
, but author or the material was not 
identified as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The 
' article discusses ' 
rby the 
petitioner. The article is clearly not about the petitioner and instead focuses on the 
- · -
- · The petitioner al~o submitted information about 
aat states: ' 
' The preceding information lacks circulation data for 
There is no evidence showing the distribution iof ~ relative to other 
~~::.to demonstrate that it qualifies as a ''major'' trade Tblication or some other fonn of''major" 
The netitioner submitted a article entitled 
that was posted at , but the author of the article was 
not identified as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In 
addition, the article is not about the petitioner. Instead, the article is abou1 
Further, tHere is no documentary evidence showing 
that qualifies as a professronal or major trade publication or some 
other form of major media. 
(b)(6)
,. 
Page6 
The petitioner's evidence included additional articles qot specifically mentioned by counsel on 
appeal. The AAO, therefore, considers the issue of theSe articles to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. 
U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 a~ *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiff's 
claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Regardless, none of 
the additional articles meet all ofthe requirements ofthe regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
For example, the remaining articles "were deficient inl that they did not include a date or an 
author, they were not about the petitioner, they lacked a full English language translation, or they 
lacked evidence that they were published in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either indivJually or on a panel, as a jitdg~ of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The AAO affirms the director's finding that the petitioner's evidence meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the!.fteld. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitidner failed to establish eligibility for this 
regulatory criterion. The plain language of the regulatibn at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires 
"[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarl!y, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field." [EmpHasis added.] Here, the evidence must be 
reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original sJholarly or business-related contributions 
"of major significance in the field." The phrase "majbr significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 
(3"' Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 34 3 F .3d 619, 1626 (200 Cir. Sep 15, 2003 ). 
On appeal, counsel points to various letters of support discussing the petitioner's work. . I, 
states: 
[The petitioner's] advice on 
was incredibly important for [The petitioner] came here to • 
~====­
and brought up very important points currently incorporated in the 
I 
Other consultants were broug!:lt along to opine on the _ ___ ___. 
But [the petitioner's] points were critical to the very ~tanding of the 
One of the main points that [the petitioner] alon~ brought up was the 
(b)(6)
Page7 
petltlonerJ was me nrst one wno orougm mat up. 
1
1H1s Ideas are always apart from any 
other consultant, expert or consulting firm. 
As one can clearly see from the 
- - -
While . states that the petitioner provided I advice on 
there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's argument against income 
I 
limits on who can purchase coverage was an "original'!' concept in the insurance business and . 
was of major significance to the field. Further, there is no empirical evidence showing that 
utilization of increased substantially as a result of the petitioner's 
original work or that his concepts otherwise equate to driginal business-related contributions of 
major significance to the field. I 
President, National Association of the PriJate Company, states: 
I ... invited [the petitioner] to :to testify.in front of our national congress on 
the issues of Public Private Partnerships, (PPPs) because of his solid reputation on this 
topic. He is particularly strong on the topic of Inskance and Financial Guarantees for 
PPPs. I . 
PPPs are government concessions to private companies that want to build roads, ports, 
hospitals and other infrastructure assets .... [The pe~itioner], as a top insurance expert, is 
very respected on this PPP niche field as well. . I 
--------------------------
* * * 
on terms of financial 
guarantees to back up infrastructure projects. His khowledge in insurance and financial 
guarantees for large infrastructure projects can help Js write a good PPP law. 
[The petitioner] has presented also to the socio lconomic commission, a group of 
politicians and civil society representatives, which have a say on final statutes drafting. 
(b)(6)
.. 
Page 8 
His presentation h:ui verv lame renercussion in the media, including the main newspaper 
of the country: 
In brief, I strongly recommend [the petitioner]. as an expert on 
describes the petitioner as knowledgeable "in insurance and financial guarantees for 
large infrastructure projects" and as "an expert on insudmce and financial guarantees for PPPs," 
I 
but fails to provide examples of specific financial concepts originated by the 
petitioner that were of major significance to the field. Assuming the petitioner's knowledge and 
expertise are unique, the classification 
sought was hot designed· merely to alleviate skill 
shortages in a given field. In fact, that issue prop~rly falls under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Labor through the alien employment cclrtification process. See Matter of New 
York State Department ofTransportation, 22 I&N Dec. t215, 221 (Comm'r 1998). Significantly, 
unique knowledge and experience do not even qualify an dtien for a waiver of the alien employment 
certification process in the national interest under a lesser tlassification set forth at section 203(b )(2) 
of the Act. /d. at 221. As such, unique knowledgcl and expertise cannot be considered a 
contribution of "major significance" to the field. At issJe for this regulatory criterion is how the 
petitioner's original work has demonstrably impacted thb field as a result of his knowledge and 
expenence. 
, Chief Economist, J 
I have known rthe petitionerl for over eight vears in various professional capacities. More 
recently, as a I have been 
following the advancements of his professional andl academic career with attention and 
interest. 
[The petitioner] contributed as an ad hoc collabor~tor to the preceding and follow-up 
activities of 
I Some of the conclusions and recommendation reaqhed during that meeting have been 
informing the 
(b)(6)
•' 
Page9 
[The petitioner) went to close this cycle by revitj ing the work done by 
states that the petitioner "contributed as an adlhoc collaborator" to a seminar on 
Governments and policymakers routinely consult with experts in various fields when engaged in 
the formulation of new laws, policies, etc. Not every falid recommendation provided by such 
consultants during the law or policy making process automatically equates to an original 
contribution of major significance to the field. Whil~ indicates that the petitioner's 
views were covered by the he does hot explain how the petitioner's work was 
either original or of major significance to the field. Fbr instance, does not provide 
I 
specific examples of how the petitioner's original PP:P practices and recommendations have 
resulted in a significant increase in ·or otherwise constitute 
original contributions of major significance to the field. 
continues: 
[The petitioner] has worked extensively and has oeen invited to moderate panels and 
lecture in most important regional conferences fobusing PPP related issues I used to 
I 
attend, such as [The petitioner] 
also coordinated the 
As an 
I Due to his professional and academic achievements I believe [the petitioner] is one of the 
top global experts on financial guarantees and in~urance on PPPs. The international 
comments that the petitioner "has been invite~ to ~oderate panels and lecture in most 
important regional conferences focusing PPP relatedj issues." The AAO notes that many 
(b)(6)Page 10 
occupational fields regularly hold meetings and conferences to present new work, discuss new 
trends, and to network with other professionals. These fonferences are promoted and sponsored 
by industry associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. 
Participation in such events, however, does not eqrlate to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. There is no documentary evidbnce showing that any of the petitioner's 
presentations are frequently cited by independent finanJial scholars, have significantly impacted 
the field, or otherwise rise to the level of contributions bf major significance to the field. While 
presentation of the petitioner's work demonstrates that his findings and ideas were shared with 
others, the AAO is not persuaded that presentation of the petitioner's work at various forums 
focusing on PPP issues is sufficient evidence establishing that his work is of "major 
significance" to the field at large and not limited to thJ ·specific forums in which his work was 
presented. The petitioner has failed to establish, for ~xample, the impact or influence of his 
presentations beyond those in attendance so as to 1establish that his work was of major 
significance to the field. 
further states that the petitioner has 
With regard comments relating to the petitioner's 
published and presented work, the regulations contain a keparate criterion regarding the authorship 
of scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The MO will not presume that evidence relating 
to or even meeting the scholarly articles criterion is pre~umptive evidence that the petitioner also 
meets this criterion. Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and 
distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exi~t for authorship of scholarly articles and 
original contributions of major significance, USCIS J1early does not view the two as being 
interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render m'eaningless the statutory requirement for 
extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate 
criteria. Publications and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 
I 
580 F .3d at 1 036. In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its 
discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 
F.3d at 1122. Thus, there is no presumption that every published article or conference 
presentation is a contribution of major significance; rather, the petitioner must document the 
actual impact of his article or presentation. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the1 petitioner submitted search results from 
indicating that his body of published work has been only minimally cited. 
Accoramg to me submitted search results, none· of th~ petitioner's scholarly articles has been 
independently cited to more than twice. The petitionbr has not established that the minimal 
number of independent cites per article is indicative of original contributions of major 
significance to the field. 
(b)(6)
.. 
Page II 
I hired [the petitioner] in 2000. . . . At the time, was General Manager and adjunct 
rlirP.c:tor of hP.~lth immr~nc.P, solvency regulation at the 
' 
[The petitioner's] work at the l _ _ _ _ was very important to 
develop and draft the current regulations in placb in the : 
market. During [the petitioner's] period at the Akency, he worked drafting over 10 
statutes. [The petitioner] worked in a group with! accountants, actuaries, statisticians, 
administrators,atto:i:neys and economists drafting statutes on health insurance managers' 
criminal rules, administrative procedures for app~als, liquidation of Insolvent health 
. plans,· premium rate increase, accounting standardsl administrative Intervention, among 
others. 
* * * 
I have ... seen [the petitioner's] articles on 
World. . . . [The petitionerl was also imoortant to 
his groundbreaking article, 
and all over the 
with 
l rus arttcte was 
and certamty one of the first 
in the World. 
one of the 
articles on 
---- : is important because it ailows for lower cost of premium for 
consumers. 
[The petitioner] has constantly brought to light inno
1
vative issues to the market. 
Perhaps the most important to the markiet in the last few years was health 
insurance accreditation. Accreditation means "td measure quality of health plans 
services" offered to consumers. This was part of th~ 
But the issue of quality measure 
(accreditation) always eluded Agency officials and directors. fThe oetitionerl started the 
debate on the topic, and helped bring to 
; [The petitioner] was extensively quoted on the topic, and his 
analysis of the importance of this topic always brohght along multiples reviews. Every 
time a quote of his came out in the media, officials
1 
would make announcements and try 
to come up with measures to spearhead an initiative rn health insurance accreditation. 
states that the petitioner worked with others at the 
to develop and draft the durrent regulations in the 
market. however, fails. to pro+de an explanation of how the specific 
proposals authored by the petitioner· were original or how they significantly impacted the 
also comments that he hasj"seen [the petitioner's] articles on 
md all over the World." While the petitioner's published articles are no 
doubt of value, it can be argued that any financial re~earch or analysis must be shown to be 
. I 
original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the public or 
I 
(b)(6)
•' 
Page 12 
private sector. Any graduate or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for graduation, 
publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of 
knowledge. It does not follow that every scholar wh9 performs original res~arc~ or financ~al 
·analyses that add to the general pool of knowledge has vmerently made a contributiOn of"maJOr 
significance" to the field. For instance, while describes the petitioner's 
I 
article as "groundbreaking," there is no 
documentary evidence showing that the article is frequbntly cited by independent scholars, that 
I 
the original methods proposed by the petitioner have substantially impacted the 
or that his work otherwise constit'utes an original contribution of major 
significance to the field. USCIS need not accept prima!rily conclusory assertions. 1756, hie. v. 
The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp.,9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). . also 
asserts that the petitioner helped to spur debate on "and 
helped bring to 
, however, does not state that the petitioner developed an original quality measure or that the 
petitioner's specific method was of major significance to: the field .. There is no evidence showine 
that practices originated by the petitioner have significantly influenced the 
industry or otherwise equate to original business-relatJI contributions of major significance to 
the field. . 
The preceding references praise the petitioner and his expertise, but there is insufficient 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitiondr•s work is of major significance to the 
I 
field. This regulatory criterion not only requires the petitioner to make original contributions, the 
regulatory criterion also requires those contributions to be of ~·major significance." Vague, 
I 
solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify original contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenc~d the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036 aff'd in part 596 F.3d at 11l5.1In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that 
the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's] contributions in 
the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relbvant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 
1122. 
The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered 
above. 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). USCIS 
is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for 
the benefit sought. !d. The submission of referende letters supporting the petition is not 
I 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N 
Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion t~stimony does not purport to be evidence 
I as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the references' statements and how they became aware of the 
petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Evbn when written by independent experts, 
letters solicited by an alien in support of an immi~ation petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a policy analyst who has made 
original contributions of major significance to the field. Without additional, specific evidence 
I 
showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, has substantially impacted his 
I 
(b)(6)
.. 
Page 13 
field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contribution of major significance, the AAO cannot 
conclude that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The AAO affirms the director's finding that the petitioner's evidence meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion and found that the 
petitioner failed to ·establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the 
director's findings for this criterion or offer additio~al arguments. The AAO, therefore, 
I 
considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 
4711885, at *9. Accordingly, the petitioner has not Jstablished that he meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
. C. Comparable EvidenceUnder 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(4) 
On appeal, counsel requests that the petitioner's entire Lbmission be considered as comparable 
evidence of his extraordinary ability pursuant to the rclgulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4). The 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the subnhssion of "comparable evidence" only if 
I 
. the ten categories of evidence "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." Thus, it is 
the petitioner's burden to demonstrate why the regulatorY criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are not 
readily applicable to· the alien's. occupation and how the ~vidence submitted is "comparable" to the 
specific objective evidence required at 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). The regulatory language 
precludes the consideration of comparable evidence inl 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.P.R. § 204.5{hj(3). In fact, as indicated in this decision, 
the p~titioner submitted evidence that specifically add¥ssed five of the categories of evidence 
set forth in the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). ~ere an alien is simply unable to satisfy 
the plain language requirements of at least three categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
I 
the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable 
evidence. Counsel's appellate brief does not explain .Jhy the regulatory criteria are not readily 
applicable to the petitioner's occupation. For instance, fue petitioner has not established that the 
high salary criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) is hot applicable to policy analysts in the 
I 
insurance and financial industry. Moreover, counsel fails to specifically identify the petitioner's 
I 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
documentary evidence that is "comparable" to any speciific objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claJ of extraordinary ability must clearly 
I 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
I 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite Jidence under at least three evidentiary 
categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion,j 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 thJ individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeafor'' and (2) ''that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclairh and that his or her achi~vements 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. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a lbvel of expertise consistent with the small 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained natiorlal or international acclaim, the AAO need 
not explain that conclusion in a final merits determinatiod.3 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory r~uirement of three categories of evidence. 
!d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(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. § 1361. · Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismiss.ed. 
3 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions offact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004 ). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction Jto conduct a final merits dete~tion as th~ office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the Act; section· 
I 
204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, f60 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
I