dismissed EB-1A Case: Project Management

identifying data deleted to 
vent clearly unw~ted 
:asion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
U.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Irrnnigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: ===I.~O:ffi;lce: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 2 8 2010 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
APPLICATION: Imm igrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)( I )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U .S.c. § 
I I 53(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 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 concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
• 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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 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. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability as a senior project manager. The director determined that the petitioner had 
not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present "extensive 
documentation" of his achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(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, specifically a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims to meet at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3). 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if --
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, 
education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially 
benefit prospectively the United States. 
Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 !OI 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. Id and 8 
C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate his sustained acclaim and 
the recognition of his achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established either through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) or through the 
submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Docwnentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification is 
sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. March 4, 2010). Although the 
court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. I With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 
204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about 
the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been 
raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfY the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the reqUlslte evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top ofthe[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that 
his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 c.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or 
international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 
1153(b )(1 )(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119 - 1120. 
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 reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply 
the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a new 
analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the two-step 
analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United Slates, 229 F. Supp. 2d 
1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afJ'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel, substantive, or 
evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page S 
This petition, filed on April IS, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a senior project manager. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3). 2 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's project management professional and six sigma black 
belt certification are documentation of t~s membership in associations in his field. On 
appeal, counsel submitted a letter from _, managing director, master black belt, Acuity 
Institute dated January 14, 20 I O. Mr. _ states that the petitioner completed Acuity Institute's six 
sigma black belt program and the criteria for the program are as follows: 
• Candidate should have five years of work experience and outstanding analytical 
skills, strong project management skills, strong leadership qualities, highly 
complex problem solving capabilities to apply for six sigma black belt. 
• Candidate has to pass an analytical exam with 8S% marks. It's an extraordinary 
accomplishment to qualify the exam before candidate can enroll for a 3-4 
months mandatory training. 
• Based on the training the candidate has to submit the assignments and his work 
on two real time projects. 
• Once the proj ect work gets reviewed the candidate has to appear for an entrance 
exam in which the candidate has to score 80% marks. 
In order to apply for the training required for six sigma black belt certification, a candidate must have 
S years of work experience and once accepted into the program, the candidate must take and pass two 
exams. The requirements as stated by Mr. _ do not constitute outstanding achievements as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in the field of management, and completion of 
the training does not constitute membership in an association. The plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(ii) requires that the outstanding achievements of the prospective members of 
associations be judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Mr. _ does not state who judges achievements of the candidate's for six sigma training. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Counsel also submitted a project management professional (PMP) certificate for the petitioner dated 
November 21,2007, The record also contains articles about PMP certification. In an article entitled 
"The PMP: How Much Value Does it Really Offer?," PMP states: 
The reality is that the PMP demonstrates three things: that you have had 35 hours of 
classroom training, have a minimum amount of experience in project management­
related work, and have passed an examination based on the PMBoK.... The PMP is 
only an assessment of knowledge, however - and a very narrowly defined body of 
knowledge at that. The exam tests you on PMI's terminology, processes, and process 
boundaries. What the PMP does not demonstrate is our competency as project 
managers or our skills in applying our competencies in real-world situations. 
The record of proceeding contains no evidence that PMP certification constitutes membership in an 
association that requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the petitioner's field. According to the article submitted by counsel, PMP certification is 
comprised of 35 hours of classroom training and passing an examination and as such it does not 
constitute a prize or award, an outstanding achievement, a contribution of major significance, or 
anything else relating to the ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedjield of specijication for which classification is 
sought. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires the petitioner to submit 
"[ e ]vidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought." The record 
contains what appears to be an email from AIU addressed to "Student" asking that the individual "study 
the attached document in depth and send [them] opinions and comments" as well as what "implications, 
professionally, this article will have on [the individual's] field of study." There is no evidence that this 
email was sent to the petitioner. Also, the record does not contain the attachment to the email or the 
date of the email. According to the AIU email, it appears that the articles sent by the university are 
"interesting and actual contents of future world trends." Even if the email was sent to the petitioner, it 
appears that the email is for the enrichment of the student and not a request to serve as the judge of the 
work of others in the petitioner's field. In his letter dated December 17,2009, Mr. _stated that as 
a successful graduate, the petitioner "continues to review articles and provide opinions." Mr._ 
does not state the subject matter of the articles reviewed by the petitioner or whether the authors of the 
articles are students or business professionals. As the plain language of this regulatory criterion 
specifically requires "[e]vidence of the alien's participation ... as the judge of the work of others," the 
assertion that the petitioner "continues to review articles and provide opinions" without evidence of 
actually judging or reviewing the work of others is insufficient to meet the plain language of the 
regulation. The lack of information in the letter gives the AAO no basis to make a favorable 
determination on the petitioner's participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an 
allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
Page 7 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in 
the field." In compliance with Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain language of the regulatory 
criteria. 596 F.3d at 1121. Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of 
original scholarly or business-related contributions "of major significance in the field." 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner meets this criterion because his thesis has been used by 
Atlantic International University (AIU) and he has published articles. Counsel submits articles at exhibit 
C of the appeal but none of them show that they were written by the petitioner. In a letter dated 
December 7, 2009, student services, Atlantic International University, states that the 
petitioner's thesis work is also "used as a source material outside of AIU for training other graduate 
students." _does not provide any information as to whom else uses the petitioner's thesis or if 
those graduate students are in the petitioner's field. In a letter dated December 17, 2009, 
using the position title of academic coordinator, Atlantic International University, states that the 
petitioner's thesis is "unique and valuable to the field" and that the petitioner "reviewed other student's 
work outside [of] the university." Mr. does not explain what makes the petitioner's thesis unique 
or valuable to the field, and the petitioner has not established that his thesis and articles constitute 
contributions of major significance to the field of project management. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he 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. 
While the petitioner never claimed eligibility for this criterion at the time of the original filing of the 
petition, a review of the director's decision reflects that he found that the petitioner's work "has only 
been distributed locally and used by the students at AIU." We note that the petitioner did not 
address or contest the decision of the director on appeal. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media." Generally, scholarly articles are written by and for experts in a particular field of study, are 
peer-reviewed, and contain references to sources used in the articles. As noted above, there is no 
evidence in the record of proceeding that the petitioner published any of his writings in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Page 8 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the alien has 
perfonned in a leading or critical role for organizations or establislunents that have a distinguished 
reputation [emphasis added]." At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill 
and the reputation of the entity that selected him. The petitioner submitted several letters praising his 
work as a senior project manager. 
In his letter dated January II, 2008, __ states that the petitioner's "vital 
contributions consist of designing operations support models, monitoring plans, creating OLAs, defining 
new processes and eliminating errors' . methodologies." Mr. does not explain the 
for his employer the subcontractor or the client 
The record contains a letter dated December 22, 2009 fro~director of operations, _ 
_ states: 
As part of [the] clinical trials drug testing process, [the petitioner] has implemented a 
process through which a user can be provisioned on a SharePoint portal so that they can 
submit their drug testing report in the automated system. While prior to this process the 
work was done manually which took many days to provision a user for clinical trial 
testing. So the unique process which he has implemented saves time and add[ s] value to 
the business. 
Moreover, he has defined many key processes from technology perspective which were 
required to achieve the objective of the project. 
Mr. _ also lists other processes that the petitioner implemented at _ including the design of 
process flow diagrams. As noted by the director, without an explanation from those in the field, the 
diagrams designed by the petitioner have not been shown to be sufficient to meet this criterion. Mr. 
_ states that the purpose of the diagrams is to "train global MRL teams to accomplish the main 
objective of the project." The letter does not provide specific infonnation as to how the design of such a 
diagram constitutes perfonning in a leading or critical role for an organization or establislunent that has a 
distinguished reputation. 
The record contains a letter dated March 12, 2009 
Mr._states: 
from director of business 
development, 
[The petitioner] contributed to designing support model and processes in the clinical 
projects New Jersey. He developed a unique support model, 
support process, and sustain plan to get better coordination to help 
achieve project objectives. 
His contributions were outstanding, original, and had a business value. 
Although Mr. _states that the petitioner's work had a business value, Mr. 
provide evidence that the petitioner perfonned in a leading or critical role for 
-
or 
Page 9 
While the letters briefly describe the petitioner's work, the documentation does not establish that his 
position was leading or critical to any organizations or establishments as a whole. The letters fail to 
establish that the petitioner's position was leading or critical; rather they describe routine job duties 
that one would expect from an individual in a technical position and generally assert that his work had 
value. While the letters mention projects in which the petitioner participated, the petitioner failed to 
establish, for instance, that his role directly led to the success and accomplishments at any of the 
companies mentioned so as to establish the petitioner's leading or critical role. Moreover, the letters of 
recommendation are general and broad in nature when describing the petitioner's specific roles, 
responsibilities, and accomplishments. In addition, the petitioner failed to submit any documentation 
establishing that the organizations or establishments mentioned have a distinguished reputation. 
Additional evidence is needed in order to find that the petitioner meets this criterion. For example, 
there is no organizational chart or other evidence documenting how the petitioner's position falls within 
the general hierarchy of his employer, the subcontractor, or _ The record does not provide 
evidence demonstrating how the petitioner's position differs from those of other project managers 
employed at his company. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 2010 596 F.3d 1115 at 1119 - 1120. In this case, many of the 
deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our 
preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
While the petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation praising his work, such letters cannot 
form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, 
use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (CommT. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the 
final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters 
of support from the petitioner's personal contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS 
may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 
795. Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's 
reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited 
by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence of original contributions of major significance. 
Finally, we carmot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive documentation" 
of the beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(I )(A) of the Act. 
The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203 (b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provide 
Page 10 
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 petitioner failed to submit 
evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very 
top ofthe field." In addition, the petitioner has not demonstrated the beneficiary's "career of acclaimed 
work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19,1990). 
The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a 
review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the 
petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. While the 
record reflects that the petitioner possesses talent as a project manager, the record falls far short in 
classifying the petitioner as an alien of extraordinary ability pursuant to the requirements of the statute 
and regulations. 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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, afJ'd, 345 
F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review 
on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, that 
burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.