dismissed EB-1A Case: Science

(b)(6)
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
AUG 0 6 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to your 
case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to 
reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days 
of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http:ljwww.uscis.gov/forms for 
the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file 
a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's 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 of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 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 under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
The petitioner's priority date established by the petition filing date is May 14, 2012. On July 9, 2012, 
the director served the petitioner with a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the petitioner's 
response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on January 2, 2013. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits a brief with new documentary evidence. For the reasons discussed below, the director's 
ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the classification sought 
is consistent with record of proceedings. 
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 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 101st 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. Jd.; 
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 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 ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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. USCJS, 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 evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.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." Jd. at 1121-22. 
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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
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 plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
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). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner initially claimed eligibility under this criterion. After the director notified the petitioner 
that her evidence was not sufficient to satisfY this criterion's requirements, she elected to no longer 
pursue her eligibility under this criterion and provided no rebuttal to the director's RFE. The petitioner 
also failed to address this criterion on appeal. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned her claims under 
this criterion. Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the 
plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted 
qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
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. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfY. First, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that she is a member of more than one association in her field. Second, the petitioner must 
demonstrate both of the following: (1) that the associations utilize nationally or internationally 
recognized experts to judge the achievements (in the plural) of prospective members to determine if the 
achievements are outstanding, and (2) that the associations use this outstanding determination as a 
condition of eligibility for prospective membership. It is insufficient for the association itself to 
determine if the achievements were outstanding, unless nationally or internationally recognized experts 
in the petitioner's field, who represent the association, render this determination. It is also insufficient 
for the petitioner to claim that she was admitted to the association because of her outstanding 
achievements; the petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding achievements of all 
prospective members. The petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
In response to the director's RFE, counsel explained that every Colombian scientist is a member of the 
National System of Science, Technology and Innovation of Colciencias. Counsel further asserted that 
the petitioner is also a member of two research groups within Colciencias, Environmental Systems and 
Materials (ESM) and Environmental Management (EM) which counsel characterizes both as "research 
groups" 
and "another level of membership." 
2 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
Counsel further asserted that the petitioner's membership "of primary importance" is the Recognized 
Peer Reviewers Information System (SNCyT), also under the auspices of Colciencias in Colombia. 
Counsel acknowledged that while Colciencias issues invitations to participate as a peer reviewer, 
Colciencias does not issue membership certificates. Colciencias, however, did issue a certificate 
recognizing the petitioner as a peer reviewer that does not use the word "member." In the RFE 
response, counsel asserted: "[T]he Peer Evaluator/Reviewer System, [is] the senior membership level 
within Colciencias for which an aspiring member has to qualify to be invited." 
The director determined that while the petitioner demonstrated this association required "professional 
achievements of its members," she failed to establish that this association required outstanding 
achievements of its members. The director also concluded that the evidence did not establish that 
national or international experts judged prospective members. The director based his reasoning on the 
SNCyT bylaws provided within the RFE response. Finally, the director concluded that the petitioner 
failed to demonstrate eligibility in more than one association as the plain language requirements of this 
criterion requires membership in associations in the plural. On appeal counsel notes that the director 
did not discuss two associations noted within the RFE response, ESM and EM. The AAO will address 
those memberships below. 
Regarding SNCyT, the first issue is whether the petitioner has documented that inclusion in this registry 
of peer reviewers constitutes membership in an association. Director of 
invited the petitioner "to become a member of exclusive group of" scientists 
serving as recognized peer reviewers, requesting "permission to include [the petitioner's] name in our 
selective group of scientists." In the document that counsel characterizes as a certification of 
membership, . Director of Development Division of Research, asserts only that the 
petitioner "was recognized as Peer Reviewer" of SNCyT. This evidence does not establish that service 
as a peer reviewer is a membership in an association. Significantly, the regulations include a separate 
criterion for service as a judge, including service on a panel. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). There is no 
presumption that evidence directly relating to one criterion must also satisfy another criterion. To hold 
otherwise would undermine the regulatory requirement that a petitioner satisfy three criteria and the 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence. 
Even if the petitioner had established that participation within a group of peer reviewers for an 
association is a level of membership in that association, and she has not, she has not established that 
inclusion on the list requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international 
experts. While the record before the director did not establish that recognized national or international 
experts participated in the selection of peer reviewers, on appeal the petitioner submits a letter from 
CEO of and board member of that resolves this issue. It 
remains to consider whether Colciencias requires outstanding achievements of its panel of peer 
reviewers. 
On appeal, counsel references the document titled, "General Definitions of the [SNCyT]" that provides 
the following general minimum requirements to be recognized as a peer reviewer: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
• Graduate degree (master or doctorate) or 10 years of research experience or technological 
innovation; 
• Directed on research or technological project or participation in three projects and having 
scientific production or outcomes associated with projects within the last 10 years; 
• Having at least three "products" resulting from the research, scientific or technological 
development conducted in the last 10 years (these products include research papers, research 
books, book chapters, patented or registered products/technological processes, products or 
technological processes not normally covered by patents, 
standards based on research results, 
gray literature and other non-certified products, dissertations, participation in graduate 
programs, and disclosure of a group's research project results); 
• Filling out the resume instrument; 
• Filling out the registration box of peer reviewers; 
• Fulfillment of the basic 
conditions of the peer reviewer role. 
On appeal, counsel asserts: "[W]e are herewith providing an analysis of the organization's selection 
criteria from Dr. that provides a context and insight into the spirit of these 
requirements." Dr. discusses the requirements for the peer reviewers. Specifically, Dr. 
claims that the professional achievements from the document titled, "General Definitions of the 
[SNCyT]," quoted above, are outstanding achievements in Colombia as it is a developing country. Dr. 
analysis that standard achievements within the research field are outstanding in Colombia is 
not persuasive. While he discusses the rarity of doctoral degrees in engineering in Colombia, he does 
not similarly assert that master's degrees are rare among Colombian engineers. Rather, Dr. 
asserts that graduate degrees are rare in the Colombian population as a whole. At issue for this criterion 
are the requirements for membership, not the petitioner's actual achievements. Moreover, the 
achievements must be outstanding for the field, not the population as a whole, which of necessity will 
include the small percentage working in one particular field. Dr. further asserts that individuals 
with recognized research experience are rare in Colombia. Once again, however, the issue is how the 
petitioner compares with other researchers, not the Colombian population as a whole. Finally, the 
general definitions document further asserts that those "who have no graduate degree or those which, 
being retired from the activity does [sic] not have research projects or products in the last 10 years may 
also register their 
resume and apply for recognition as peer reviewers." Accordingly, the petitioner has 
not established that the requirements for inclusion in the registry of peer reviewers are above those 
achievements commensurate with researchers working in their field. 
Regarding ESM and EM, the petitioner only provided evidence that she was part of each research 
group. The petitioner failed to document that either research group constitutes an association as 
anticipated by the regulation or a separate level of membership in Colciencias rather than a division that 
members voluntarily join without restriction according to their interests. Specifically, the bylaws 
merely discuss the mission of the research groups without implying that nationally or internationally 
recognized experts select members of the research groups based on their outstanding achievements. 
Similar! y, Mr. discusses the national databases of research groups, the participant researchers, 
and the importance of the real time information these databases provide to science policymakers but 
does not discuss the requirements for participating in these research groups. The evidence of record is 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
insufficient to demonstrate that either of these entities might serve to qualify the petitioner under this 
criterion. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 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 allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner initially claimed eligibility under this criterion. After the director notified the petitioner 
that her evidence was not sufficient to satisfY this criterion's requirements, she elected to no longer 
pursue her eligibility under this criterion and provided no rebuttal to the director's RFE. The petitioner 
also failed to address this criterion on appeal. The petitioner has therefore abandoned this 
criterion. Sepulveda 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy aild that it be 
accompanied by the role's matching duties. The petitioner also has the burden to demonstrate that she 
actually performed the duties listed relating to the leading role. A critical role should be apparent from 
the petitioner's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The petitioner's 
performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for the organization or 
establishment as a whole. The petitioner must demonstrate that the organizations or establishments (in 
the plural) have a distinguished reputation. While neither the regulation nor precedent speak to what 
constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines distinguished as, 
"marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence."3 Dictionaries are not of themselves evidence, but 
3 See Jill:P-://www.m erriam-w ebster.com/dictionary /distingl!.!shed, accessed on May 14, 2013, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
they may be referred to as aids to the memory and understanding of the court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 
304, 306 (1893). Therefore , it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the organizations or 
establishments claimed under this criterion are marked by eminence, distinction, excellence, or an 
equivalent reputation. Finally, the petitioner must document a qualifying role for distinguished 
organizations or establishments in the plural. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these 
elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
On appeal the petitioner contests the director's adverse determination relating to the 
and ----..., The 
petitioner asserts that the director failed to acknowledge any of the evidence submitted in response to 
the RFE and simply repeated the language in the RFE of how the evidence was insufficient. The 
petitioner also asserts on appeal that she can demonstrate eligibility by showing she performed in a 
leading or critical role for a division within a university. The leading or the critical role must be 
performed on behalf of the organization or establishment as a whole rather than for a smaller division of 
an organization or establishment. See Noroozi v. Napolitano, 11 CIV. 8333 PAE, 2012 WL 5510934 *8 
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2012). To demonstrate eligibility through a leading or critical role for a division, 
the petitioner must establish that the division is itself an organization or establishment and that it enjoys 
its own 
individual distinguished reputation. 
Dr. President oi indicated that the petitioner was the Director of the 
Civil and Environmental Engineering programs at The petitioner led the effort and achieved 
national accreditation from the National Ministry of Education of Civil Engineering Program and the 
same for the Environmental Engineering Program. Based on the facts of the present case, the petitioner 
has established that her success in these efforts contributed to attaining accreditation for the 
overall institution to the extent that her performance sufficiently impacted the organization as a whole. 
In support of Dr. letter, the petitioner submitted accreditation documentation. The 
accreditation document states: "The accreditation is the act whereby the State approves and publicly 
announces that the academic peers carried out the verification that an institution achieves the quality of 
its academic programs , organization, functioning and accomplishment of its social mission , establishing 
as an instrument to improve the quality of higher education." That received accreditation is not 
sufficient to demonstrate the distinguished reputation of this organization. 
Dr. also lists several "medals and distinctions " that bas received, but the record lacks 
evidence demonstrating that actually received the claimed accolades and it also lacks evidence of 
the significance of any of these medals or distinctions. While the petitioner may establish that a 
university enjoys a distinguished reputation by documenting awards or rankings among similar 
educational institutions, letters with unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claims that essentially amount 
to assertions are insufficient by themselves. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). While the petitioner submitted Colombian university integral 
rankings to show that UdN is ranked fifth, that same document reflects that is only ranked 32"ct out 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page9 
of 80 universities. Without corroborating evidence of the distinctions and their significance, the 
petitioner has not established the distinguished reputation of 
Through the university's rank:ings, the petitioner did establish the distinguished reputation of The 
petitioner did not, however, establish that she played a leading or critical role for this university. To 
establish the significance of her role with the petitioner relies on a letter from 
Director of the ___ _ _ at Dr. explains 
that falls under the Engineering Division at and "leads the environmental discussion in 
Colombia" through the _ Dr. asserts that the petitioner's 
critical role for was through teaching and developing "specialized international and national 
courses" and through coordinating the extension of the 
The petitioner submitted promotional slides to establish IDS' reputation. This evidence does not 
establish IDS' reputation outside UdN. Cf Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 
2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (91h Cir. 2009) (USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of a 
publisher). While the petitioner submitted course curricula for courses she designed and taught, she did 
not submit any evidence that any other university has adopted these courses as implied by Dr. 
or otherwise explain how these courses have impacted or even beyond the obvious need for 
competent professors who prepare curricula for their courses. The petitioner has not established that her 
role as a professor and coordinator of one extension of one conference constitutes a leading or critical 
role for as a whole or even for Even if the petitioner had established a leading or critical role 
for and that is its own organization or establishment, she has not established that 
individually enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires the petitioner to submit 
evidence of a "high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in 
the field." Average salary information for those performing work in a 
related but distinct occupation 
with different responsibilities is not a proper basis for comparison. The petitioner must submit 
documentary evidence of the earnings of those in her occupation performing similar work at the top 
level of the field.
4 
The petitioner must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that she has 
earned a "high salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in comparison with those performing 
4 
While the AAO acknowledges that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, the AAO notes that in 
Racine v. INS, 1995 WL 153319 at *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 ... the definition of the term 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the 
discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99." 
(b)(6)
---------~- - ---- -- ----- - --·· - --
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
similar work during the same time period. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1994) (considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also 
Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other 
NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL 
defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
The petitioner initially provided a letter from Dr. _ Vice President of 
payroll statements, tax documentation and her employment and special project contracts. Dr. 
asserts that the petitioner earned a salary of 56,433 pesos as a professor and an additional salary of 
129,000 as a researcher/consultant. The payroll statement for which the petitioner provided an English 
translation indicates a monthly base salary of 3,677,948 pesos, which annualizes to 44,135,376 pesos. 
The petitioner's tax documentation indicates that in2009, she claimed a salary of 56,433,000 pesos and 
additional remuneration of 129,000,000 pesos in fees, 86,000 pesos in interest, and 727,000 pesos in 
other income. The petitioner's employment contract for a position as a professor lists a monthly salary 
of 2,645,000 pesos. The special projects contracts list various percentages of fees that the petitioner was 
to receive for specific research projects. 
The director notified the petitioner that her submitted evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate her 
eligibility as it failed to compare the petitioner ' s compensation with others working in her field. In 
response, the petitioner submitted a letter from Director of Human Resources at 
supported by Colombian regulations and policy on university salaries. Ms. Navarro asserts that 
the petitioner's salary was 185,433,000 pesos in 2009, which was "one of the highest salaries among 
others who are top of her field serving as professor." Dr. explains that salary is based on 
education and experience and continues: 
[The petitioner could] command a maximum salary per year of $107,330,400 COP 
(USD [$]60,998.77) over his or her salary as a professor. The fact that [the petitioner] 
commanded USD$105,386,386.60 demonstrates not only that she was paid significantly 
higher than other top professors/researchers but that she was reaching the ceiling of the 
maximum pay attainable by a Professor/Researcher in Colombia. 
Ms. then affirms that only 5.4 percent of the university's employees working as both 
researchers and professor "may command a significantly higher salary, such as rthe petitioner ' s]." Ms. 
concludes that the petitioner ' s salary was the second highest salary jpaid. The supporting 
Colombian Decree No. dated April 13, 2009, modifying professors' salaries in Colombia, 
provides that the fourth level monthly salary for a professor with at Ph.D., like the petitioner in this 
matter, is 4,203,996 pesos. None of the materials provide data regarding research and consulting fees, 
the petitioner's other remuneration beyond her salary. 
The director determined that comparison with average or median salaries was insufficient, concluding 
that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, counsel asserts that the 
petitioner previously discussed and documented eligibility under this criterion, including providing 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
evidence of other salaries in the field for comparison purposes. The petitioner nevertheless provides 
additional evidence. 
On appeal, the petitioner provides a Human Capital Report relating to salaries for those in higher 
education in Colombia, and testimonial evidence 
relating to the nature of Colombia's compensation 
standards. Counsel asserts that the report shows that assistant professors earn a "maximum of 
3,435,000" pesos, less than the petitioner earned as an "Assistant Professor," especially when combined 
with her income as a researcher. The record does not support this assertion. First, the Human Capital 
Report lists that wage as the third quartile monthly salary, not the maximum monthly salary. 
Regardless, the petitioner's employment contract lists her position as a professor, not an assistant 
professor. According to the Human Capital Report, the third quartile monthly income for full 
professors, tenure track, class B, is 5,376,000 pesos. In addition, Dr. asserted in her January 
21, 2013 letter that the petitioner was a director of an academic program at UTB. The Human Capital 
Report lists the third quartile monthly salary for a director of an academic program as 4,568,000 pesos. 
In light of the complete data in the report, the petitioner has not established that her monthly salary as a 
professor and director of a department, 3,677,948 pesos, falls within even the third quartile for the 
position she actually held. 
Finally, the petitioner has not established that a comparison of her salary as a professor plus her research 
fees is a useful comparison to professors ' salaries alone. The research fees constitute other 
remuneration. According to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the 
petitioner must demonstrate that any other remuneration separate from salary is "significantly high." 
The petitioner has not submitted evidence of research fees in Colombia nationally for comparison 
purposes. Instead, Ms. implies that the petitioner earned fees higher than was allowed to 
pay, but fails to explain how was able to pay such fees. Regardless, comparison with fees at one 
university is insufficient. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not satisfied the plain language requirements of this criterion with 
probative, relevant evidence. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
"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" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.P.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 level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination. 5 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types 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 appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination 
as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of 
the Act; section 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, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).