dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

idenHfying data deleted to 
preven~ c!ea:dy EH1Wi2r~fanted 
-fJt.ffitTC COpy 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
DEC 07 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Benefic iary: 
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)(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 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)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~
D.tHIlL 
. Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition on November 27, 2009. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the 
petitioner's appeal of that decision. The petitioner filed a motion to reopen and a motion to 
reconsider the AAO's decision. The director erroneously dismissed the motion, and the AAO 
reopened the proceeding on its own motion to consider the merits of the petitioner's motion. The 
AAO's prior decision will be affirmed. The appeal remains dismissed and the petition remains 
denied. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(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 
petitioner's 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. 
The AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal on December 28, 2010. The petitioner filed its 
motion on January 26, 2011. On motion, the petitioner submits a brief and additional 
documents. 
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 
Page 3 
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. 
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. 723 101 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 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; 
Page 4 
(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. 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)." [d. 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 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 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. 
I 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 
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 Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. 
DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de 
novo basis). 
II. The AAO's Motion to Reopen 
On September 22, 2011, the AAO withdrew the decision of the director and reopened the matter 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5)(ii) for purposes of entering a new decision to 
consider the merits of the petitioner's motions to reopen and reconsider. In addition, the AAO 
introduced derogatory information into the record regarding the non-accreditation of Atlantic 
International University [AIU] in the United States. Finally, the AAO informed counsel that a 
new, fully, and accurately executed Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or 
Accredited Representative, must be submitted to authorize counsel to represent the petitioner. 
The AAO notes that in response to the AAO's notice, counsel has now submitted a properly 
executed Form G-28. 
In its notice, the AAO indicated that the petitioner submitted several documents relating to AIU 
regarding the judging criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the 
original contributions criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), as well as 
documentary evidence reflecting that he received a degree of doctor of philosophy from AIU. 
Specifically, the AAO noted that AIU is not an accredited2 university in the United States.3 This 
fact is important as many jobs and professions will not accept degrees from unaccredited 
institutions. In fact, it is illegal in some states to use a degree from AIU to obtain employment, a 
license, or certificate to practice a trade.4 While the petitioner claimed at the initial filing of his 
2 According to the U.S. Department of Education's website, "[t]he goal of accreditation is to ensure that education 
provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality." See 
http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/, accessed on December 6, 20 II and incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
3 See: http://hawaii.gov/dccalocp/udgi/lawsuits/AIU; 
http://hawaii.gov/dccalocp/udgi/lawsuits/AIU/atlantic inti u c.pdf; and 
http://hawaii.gov/dccalocp/udgi/lawsuits/AIU/atlantic intI u sj.pdf, accessed on September 6,2011, and previously 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
4 See http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm.?objectid=6941 C34E-DF3E-4B42-288239D3FC3ACD29; see also. 
http://www.osac.state.or.us/odalunaccredited.aspx. listings AIU as a school "not authorized to offer degrees in the 
state of Oregon" and noting that "some degrees cannot be used at all and some can only be used with a disclaimer. 
Individuals in violation are subject to a Class B misdemeanor. Both sites accessed on December 5, 2011 and 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 6 
petition that he "was given the highest possible grading that was ever given to any other similarly 
situated student [at AIU]" and his "thesis was considered to be outstanding by [his] supervisors," 
those personal accomplishments were recognized at an unaccredited institution in the United 
States and do not reflect an individual who is at the very top of his field of endeavor and whose 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In response to the AAO's notice, counsel submitted an "Apostille" from the Secretary of State of 
Florida, as well as the previously submitted doctor of philosophy degree from AID, and argued 
that it is "proof of authenticity of the university." However, an apostille from the Secretary of 
State of Florida is simply a "procedure to have the Secretary of State certify or apostille a 
document as authentic [emphasis added]."s As such, the "Apostille" that was submitted by 
counsel only demonstrates that the document reflecting the petitioner's degree of philosophy for 
AIU is an authentic document. The issue, as raised in the AAO's notice, was not whether the 
petitioner's documentary evidence was authentic or not or even whether AIU exists; rather the 
issue was AIU's non-accredited status in the United States. The documentary evidence 
submitted by counsel fails to establish that AID is an accredited university in the United States. 
Counsel provided no other arguments and submitted no other documentary evidence to overcome 
the derogatory information in response to the AAO's notice. As AIU is not an accredited 
institution in the United States and the petitioner is prohibited from using his AIU degree in 
states such as Texas and Oregon, as will be discussed, his reliance on a thesis written at, a degree 
awarded by, and review of work at an unaccredited institution is not indicative of an individual at 
the very top of his field whose achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise and 
has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
III. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) policy. 8 c.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to 
reconsider contests the correctness of the original decision based on the previous factual record, 
as opposed to a motion to reopen which seeks a new hearing based on new or previously 
unavailable evidence. See Matter of Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399,403 (BIA 1991). 
A motion to reconsider cannot be used to raise a legal argument that could have been raised 
earlier in the proceedings. Rather, the "additional legal arguments" that may be raised in a 
motion to reconsider should flow from new law or a de novo legal determination reached in its 
decision that may not have been addressed by the party. Further a motion to reconsider is not a 
process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek 
reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision. Instead, the moving party must 
5 See http://notaries.dos.state.tl.u5/. Accessed on November 1, 2011, and incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 7 
specify the factual and legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in 
the initial decision or must show how a change in law materially affects the prior decision. See 
Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216, 219 (BIA 1990, 1991). 
In the AAO's prior determination, the AAO found that the petitioner failed to meet at least three 
of the regulatory criteria pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The AAO 
specifically and thoroughly discussed the petitioner's evidence and determined that the petitioner 
failed to eligibility for the membership criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the judging criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 
the original contributions criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the 
authorship of scholarly articles criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), 
and the leading or critical role criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In counsel's brief on motion, she argued that "[t]he analysis the service has advanced to 
substantiate its decision to deny approval does not take into consideration certain relevant facts 
that are material and critical to a fair determination as to whether the applicant has actually 
satisfied the minimum criteria." Counsel also submitted additional documentary evidence and 
argued that the new evidence establishes the petitioner's eligibility for the regulatory criteria 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The motion to reconsider does not allege that the issues, as raised on appeal, involved the 
application of precedent to a novel situation, or that there is new precedent or a change in law 
that affects the AAO's prior decision. As noted above, a motion to reconsider must include 
specific allegations as to how the AAO erred as a matter of fact or law in its prior decision, and it 
must be supported by pertinent legal authority. Again, a motion to reconsider is not a process by 
which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek 
reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision. Because counsel failed to raise 
such allegations of error in her motion to reconsider, counsel's arguments are not sufficient to 
meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
The motion is dismissed. 
IV. Motion to Reopen 
On motion, counsel submits additional documentation regarding the membership criterion, the 
judging criterion, the original contributions criterion and the leading or critical role criterion. A 
motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Based on the plain meaning of "new," a new fact 
is found to be evidence that was not available and could not have been discovered or presented in 
the previous proceeding. 7 On motion, counsel submits no fact that could be considered "new" 
under 8 c.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored 
for the same reasons as are petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly 
discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 u.s. 314, 323 (1992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 
(1988». A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 
110. 
Regarding the membership criterion, the AAO previously determined that the petitioner's six 
sigma black belt certification and project management professional (PMP) certification failed to 
meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requiring 
"[d]ocumentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which is classification 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields." As it pertains to the six sigma 
black belt certification, counsel argues on motion that the AAO improperly evaluated the letter 
from A review of the AAO's decision reflects that letter was 
specifically and thoroughly discussed. Counsel failed to submit any new regarding the 
petitioner's six sigma six certification that would meet the plain language of the elements of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). With the current motion regarding the six sigma black belt 
certification, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
Regarding the PMP certification, the AAO's decision found that the article submitted by the 
petitioner reflected that "PMP certification is comprised of 35 hours of classroom training and 
passing an examination." On motion, counsel argues: 
The most valuable certification in the Project management methodologies 
recognized by the global clients. [The petitioner] has been identified among the few 
percentage of Project Management professionals who owns a global PMP 
certification with excellent grades which is an outstanding achievement. 
With no explanation regarding its prior unavailability, counsel also submitted a letter from .. 
Project Management Institute (PMI), who stated: 
PMI is the world's leading not-for-profit membership association for the project 
management profession, with only 3,70,000 [sic] PMI professionals out of 35 
million workforces in the Information Technology and other industries who use 
Project Management Methodologies. 
7 The word "new" is defined as "1. having existed or been made for only a short time ... 3. Just discovered, found, or 
learned <new evidence> .... " WEBSTER'S II NEW RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY DICTIONARY 792 (l984)(emphasis in 
original). 
Page 9 
[The petitioner] is among the few percentage of Project Management 
professionals who owns a global PMP certification with excellent grades which is 
an outstanding achievement. 
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. 
The letter from fails to reflect any membership requirements for PMI, so as to 
establish that it requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. In fact, as stated in the AAO's 
previous decision, membership is based on 35 hours of classroom training and passing an exam. 
The AAO is not persuaded that attending training and passing an exam is tantamount to 
outstanding achievements, as well as they are not judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. tated that the petitioner "owns a global 
PMP certification with excellent grades which is an outstanding achievement," the issue is 
whether the petitioner was granted membership in an association that required outstanding 
achievements of its members. Although~onsiders the petitioner's ownership of a 
global PMP certification with excellent grades to be an outstanding achievement, there is no 
evidence to show that PMI requires outstanding achievements of its members. Furthermore, the 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing that membership with PMI is 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Regarding the judging criterion, the AAO determined that the petitioner's submission of an e-
mail and a letter from failed to meet the plain 
language of the regulatIOn at reqUIres '[e]vidence 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." On motion, counsel claims: 
The Service, while convinced that [the petitioner] may have reviewed others' 
work, had suspicion about the email sent to [the petitioner] by the university 
personnel and thus discounted his claim that he reviewed others' work in the field. 
Contrary to counsel's assertions on motion, the AAO was not convinced that the petitioner may 
have reviewed others' work. In fact, the AAO determined: 
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] 
Page 10 
opinions and statements" as well 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 AID 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. 
Clearly, the AAO did not find that the petitioner has ever reviewed the work of others. 
Furthermore, on motion, counsel submitted another letter from~ho stated: 
As a successful PhD graduate he reviews the articles and provides his feedback on 
Graduate student coursework which has been sent to him through email by AIU. 
He has judged the work of other students and his thesis has been used as a 
reference material by students at AIU and business professionals outside the 
university. 
Again, counsel fails to provide any explanation regarding why this information was not 
previously presented. Regardless, as indicated in the AAO's evaluation previous 
letter, the additional letter also fails to include specific information, such as the date and names 
of the articles or work that was purportedly judged to demonstrate that petitioner has actually 
participated as a judge of the work of others. 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 specialization for which classification is t 
consistent with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
failed to indicate who the petitioner judged, what the petitioner judged, or even if his 
participation as a judge was in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought. The submission of a letter that lacks any pertinent information and 
simply states that the petitioner "has judged the work of other students," without any supporting 
documentary evidence is insufficient to meet this regulatory criterion. 
Regarding the original contributions criterion, the AAO determined that the petitioner's thesis at 
AIU did not meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) that requires 
"[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field." On motion, counsel submits a letter from. 
who stated: 
[The petitioner's] thesis was a monumental academic development, in which he 
performed in an outstanding manner, and it represents a definite asset in our 
modem world within the context of globalization. In other words, [the petitioner] 
Page 11 
has true authority in the field, and his expertise will prove extremely useful in the 
world of academia as well as for an entire country at large. 
Counsel provides no statement regarding why this information was not previously available for 
submission. Notwithstanding, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level 
of original business-related contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase "major 
significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple 
Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d~Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 
(2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). _ failed to explain how the petitioner's thesis "was a 
monumental academic development" or how it is "a definite asset in our modern world." Even if 
AIU, an unaccredited institution, considers the thesis to be a contribution of major significance, 
there is no evidence demonstrating that the thesis has been applied or impacted the field outside 
of AIU, so as to demonstrate that the petitioner has made an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. Similarly, as indicated above, generally stated that the 
petitioner's "thesis has been used as a reference material by students at AIU and business 
professionals outside the university." Again, it appears that only students at AIU have used the 
thesis. to identify a single business professional who has used the petitioner's 
thesis outside the university. The AAO is not persuaded that a thesis that may be used as 
reference material at an unaccredited university is evidence of an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
Moreover, even if the petitioner were to submit supporting documentary evidence showing that 
his thesis meets the elements of this criterion, which he has not, section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
requires the submission of extensive evidence. Consistent with that statutory requirement, the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires more than one original contribution 
of major significance in the field. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are 
worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 c.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only 
require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes 
to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO 
can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, 
federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or 
plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 
(D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1, *10 (D. 
Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" 
bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single 
degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). As counsel only claimed the 
petitioner's eligibility for a single contribution, the petitioner clearly does not meet the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Regarding the scholarly articles criterion, the AAO indicated that although the petitioner did not 
claim eligibility for this criterion the director determined that the petitioner's work "has onl y 
been distributed locally and used by the students at AIU." The AAO found the record contained 
Page 12 
no evidence that any of the petitioner's work had been published in professional or major trade 
publications or major media. The AAO further determined this issue to be abandoned by the 
petitioner as he did not contest it on appeal. Despite failing to raise any argument before the 
AAO on appeal, on motion counsel now claims that "the definition of publication has been 
satisfied here [as] a thesis does go through peer review and thorough examination." Counsel 
submits no documentary evidence to demonstrate the petitioner's thesis was published, much 
less that it was published in a professional publication or other major media. Without 
documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 
1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The 
unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not evidence and thus are not 
entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 'n.6 (1984); 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). 
Finally, even if the AAO did not consider the issue to be abandoned and counsel had submitted 
supporting documents on motion, this criterion requires more than one publication. A single 
claimed publication is not sufficient to meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). See Maramjaya v. USCIS at *12; Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoffat *10. 
Regarding the leading or critical role criterion, the AAO determined that the petitioner failed to 
meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) that requires "[ e ]vidence 
that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation." Specifically, the AAO determined that the letters from 
Global) briefly described the petitioner's work but failed to demonstrate the petitioner's positions 
were leading or critical. Moreover, the AAO determined: 
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 
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 Merck. The record does not provide evidence 
demonstrating how the petitioner's position differs from those of other project 
managers employed at his company. 
Page 13 
Again, on motion, counsel submitted additional letters without providing any explanation as to 
why such information was not previously available. Regardless, the letters from 
that the petitioner "has played a ill 
designing the support model and processes for It is noted that 
all three letters are similarly written suggesting that one author was responsible for all of the 
letters. Nonetheless, while those familiar with the petitioner generally describe his positions as 
"critical," there is insufficient evidence demons that the performed 
in a critical role for The AAO is not 
persuaded by vague, solicited letters that simply repeat the regulatory language but do not 
explain how the petitioner has performed in a critical role. Merely repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *1,*5 (S.D.N.Y.). Moreover, counsel did not 
submit on motion an organizational chart or other evidence documenting how the petitioner's 
position falls within the general hierarchy at any of the companies, and evidence demonstrating 
how the petitioner's position differs from those of other project managers employed at his 
company as indicated in the AAO's decision so as to distinguish the petitioner's role from other 
employees in similar positions and demonstrate how his role was leading or critical. Counsel 
failed to establish that the petitioner meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In it prior decision, the AAO also conducted a final merits determination, incorporated here by 
reference, pursuant to Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In that determination, 
the AAO specifically found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate: (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); 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.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). In regard to this discussion, the AAO noted that the alien relied mostly upon 
recommendation letters praising the petitioner for his work as a project manager but ultimately 
determined that the record did not contain "extensive documentation" and could not support a 
finding that the petitioner was one of "the small percentage" at the top of his field who "has a 
career of acclaimed work." Counsel does not address this final merits determination on motion. 
The motion is dismissed. 
Beyond the AAO's previous determination, the petitioner's reliance on documentary evidence 
related to work at and a degree from an unaccredited institution is further evidence that the 
petitioner cannot be viewed as an individual whose "achievements have been recognized in the 
field of expertise," who "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." See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Page 14 
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, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The decision of the AAO dated December 28, 2010, is affirmed, the appeal 
remains dismissed and the petition remains denied.