dismissed EB-1A Case: Research

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cie i+/ unwarranted 
invasion or personai pnvacy 
PUBLlC COl'Y 
DATE: FEB 0 8 201~FFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank Y04> ., 
'.. 1 .~ 
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 (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. 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 or her achievements. 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, 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, counsel claims that the petitioner meets 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 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 WIst Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Ped. 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the 
following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles III the field, III 
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; 
-Page 4 
(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 CiT. 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. 1 With respect to the criteria 
at 8 CF.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 CF.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 requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the [ir] field of endeavor," 
8 CF.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 CF.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. 
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 States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th CiT. 2003); 
see also Sollane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d CiT. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
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 5 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on May 20, 2010, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a research associate. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to 
the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 2 
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. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires 
"[p ]ublished material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought." In general, 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. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.3 Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 
c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that "[s]uch evidence shall include the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessary translation." 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted an article entitled, 
that was posted on numerous websites 
such as In addition, the petitioner 
submitted some slight variations of the article that were posted on other websites such as •••• 
The petitioner failed to include the author of the article, 
including the variations of the article, as required pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Moreover, a review of the article reflects that it is about the discovery that 
Interferon, a drug used to treat blood cancers, multiple sclerosis, and hepatitis, when combined 
with another standard chemotherapy agent can selectively kill colon cancer cells. Although the 
article indicates that the scientists at made the discovery, as well 
as mentioning the petitioner one time as being on the research team, the article is not about the 
petitioner relating to his work. Rather, the article is about the discovery from the study. As the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
3 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 
be "about" the petitioner relating to his work in the field for which classification is sought, the 
submission of evidence that simply mentions the petitioner's name, quotes the petitioner, or is 
not otherwise about the petitioner fails to equate to published material about the alien relating to 
his work in the field. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers or 
professors pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Act, which only requires published material 
about the alien's work. An article that is not about the petitioner does not meet this regulatory 
criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 
2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
that was posted on several websites such as 
The petitioner failed to include the author of the article as required 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii). Furthermore, the article is another 
variation of the article mentioned above and is not about the petitioner relating to his work. 
Instead, while the article mentions the petitioner two times as being one of the researchers from 
the study, the article is about combining Interferon with Irinotecan to treat colon cancer. As 
such, the article does not meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) 
requiring "[p ]ublished material about the alien." 
submitted an article entitled, 
that was posted on several web sites such as _ 
The petitioner failed to include the author of 
the article as required pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii). Again, the article 
is not published material about the petitioner relating to his work. Rather, the article is a brief 
summary of a paper entitled, "IRF-S Is a Mediator of the Death Receptor-Induced Apoptotic 
Signaling Pathway," that was published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. Although the 
article credits the petitioner for publishing the study in the journal, the fact remains that the 
article is not about the petitioner relating to his work consistent with the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii). 
Notwithstanding the above, the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) 
also requires that the material be published "in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media." As indicated above, the petitioner's documentary evidence reflects articles that 
were posted on the Internet. However, the AAO is not persuaded that articles posted on the 
Internet from a printed publication or from an organization are automatically considered major 
media. In today's world, many newspapers, publications, and organizations, regardless of size 
and distribution, post at least some of their stories on the Internet. To ignore this reality would 
be to render the "major media" requirement meaningless. However, the AAO is not persuaded 
that international accessibility by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given website is 
"major media." In the case here, while the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
regarding some of the websites, the petitioner failed to submit independent, objective evidence 
establishing that the websites are considered major media. Instead, the petitioner submitted self­
promotional, background information from the publications' or organizations' websites rather 
than impartial documentary evidence demonstrating that the web sites are major media. See 
-Page 7 
Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) a/I'd 2009 WL 604888 (9
th 
Cir. 
2009) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a 
magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). 
As discussed above, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires 
"[p ]ublished material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought." In this case, 
the petitioner's documentary evidence fails to reflect any published material about him relating 
to his work in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. 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." A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner 
submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that he meets the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets the plain language of the regulation for this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this 
criterion. 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." A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the 
petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that he meets the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets the plain language of the regulation for this 
criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian OpInIOn, the AAO must next conduct a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 
Page 8 
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)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 c'P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 P.3d at 
1115. The petitioner met the plain language of the regulation for two of the criteria, in which at 
least three are required under the regulation at 8 c'P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case, many of the 
deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in the 
preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In evaluating the final merits determination, the AAO must look at the totality of the evidence to 
determine the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In this case, the 
petitioner has published scholarly articles, has had some of his work cited by others, and has 
performed research in laboratories. However, the accomplishments of the petitioner fall far short 
of establishing that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor" and that he "has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." The 
petitioner's evidence must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to 
evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), therefore, depends on the 
extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. 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." See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(vi), the AAO acknowledges that 
the petitioner has documented his co-authorship of 16 journal articles that were published at the 
time of filing. The petitioner, however, has not established that his publication record sets him 
apart through a "career of acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19,1990). That 
report also says that "an alien must (1) demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in 
the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics (as shown through extensive 
documentation) ... " 
The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition (accessed at 
www.bls.gov/oco on January 31, 2012 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), provides 
information about the nature of employment as a biological scientist and the requirements for 
such a position. The handbook expressly states that a "solid record of published research is 
essential in obtaining a permanent position involving basic research.,,4 This information reveals 
4 See http://W\vw.bls.gov/oco/pdf/ocos047.pdf, accessed on January 31, 2012, copy incorporated into the record of 
proceedings. 
-Page 9 
that published research does not necessarily set an individual apart from other biological 
scientists employed in that researcher's field. 
As authoring scholarly articles is inherent to scholars, scientists, and researchers, the AAO will 
also evaluate a citation history or other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's articles to 
determine the impact and recognition his work has had on the field and whether such influence 
has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the 
petitioner would provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that other 
researchers have been influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination 
stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. On the other hand, few or no 
citations of an article authored by the petitioner may indicate that his work has gone largely 
unnoticed by his field. A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted 
documentary evidence reflecting that seven of the petitioner's articles were cited approximately 
118 times with the highest cited article cited 52 times. The petitioner failed to submit any 
documentary evidence regarding the citations, if any, of his other nine articles. As these citations 
demonstrate moderate interest in his published work, they are not sufficient to demonstrate that 
his articles have attracted a level of interest in his field commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
Many of the petitioner's references' credentials are far more impressive than those of the 
petitioner and appear to have risen to a level far above his own accomplishments. For example: 
1. Authored 272 publications; 
2. Authored 161 publications; 
3. Authored 351 publications; and 
4. Authored 126 publications. 
Although the petitioner met the plain language of the regulation through his co-authorship and 
authorship of scholarly articles, he has not established that the moderate publication of such 
articles demonstrates a level of expertise indicating that he is among that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Regarding the petitioner's original research findings pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), demonstrating that the petitioner's work was "original" in that it did not merely 
duplicate prior research is not useful in setting the petitioner apart through a "career of acclaimed 
work." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). That report also says that "an alien must (1) 
demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business 
or athletics (as shown through extensive documentation) ... " Research work that is unoriginal 
would be unlikely to secure the petitioner a master's degree, let alone classification as a scientific 
researcher of extraordinary ability. To argue that all original research is, by definition, 
-Page 10 
"extraordinary" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
research is "unoriginal." 
Further, the OOH states specifically with respect to the biological sciences that a "solid record of 
published research is essential in obtaining a permanent position performing basic research, 
especially for those seeking a permanent college or university faculty position." See 
www.bls.gov/oc0/ocos047.pdf.This information reveals that original published research, 
whether arising from research at a university or private employer, does not set the researcher 
apart from others in that researcher's field. 
Finally, the AAO cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive 
documentation" of his sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of 
the Act provide 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 has not demonstrated his "career of acclaimed work in the 
field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than he to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is far 
above the level he has attained. For example, _is a member of the National Academy of 
Sciences, and served as a reviewer for at least 14 publications including 
Science. 
The petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the 
top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top at some 
unspecified future time. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league 
level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N 
Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899. While the AAO acknowledges 
that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, the AAO notes that in Matter of Racine, 
1995 WL 153319 at *1, *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison 
is not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all 
levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within 
the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this 
district, Crimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the 
definition of the term 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the 
preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and 
circuit, the court's reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Page 11 
In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of filing the 
petition were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim, or that he was 
among that small percentage at 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)(1)(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, 
affd, 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.