dismissed EB-1A Case: Seafood Industry

U.S. Department of Homehnd Security 
O. .- - 
 I - 
 U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
iACl:-:--i:L>T CLLlk ., :!(-,-:,c! -- 
 Ofice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
-- z-~ir,: ci(2,- +,, I;F,,,/z~; c,?LL3d 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
i:~~r~ix~ fif ; ::;: :L! ; :: ,xy 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
pxF: $C @Qpy 
;\ L 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DatebAy 
 2009 
LIN 07 082 51455 
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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
~0~44 hd~ 
f John F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) and that the director applied incorrect standards in denying the petition. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on January 24,2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a Sales and Marketing Director and Seafood Production, Distribution and Marketing 
Specialist. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated.in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. 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." 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(2). 
As aforementioned, each petition must be adjudicated on its own merits under the statutory provisions 
and regulations which apply. Thus, the petitioner's eligibility will be evaluated under the regulatory 
criteria relating to the immigrant classification as claimed by the petitioner. 
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 that he had been awarded the "Cross of the Armed Forces" in 
February of 1992. In order to establish his receipt of this award, he provided a photograph of the 
award without a translation that was certified as being complete and accurate pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3). Without the proper translation, the AAO cannot determine 
whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. Accordingly, this photograph is not probative 
and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. The petitioner also submitted a letter from 
the World Conservation Trust ("IWMC") President, dated November 10, 1997, proposing that he be 
nominated as the "Seafood Personality of the Year." 
After a review of the initial evidence submitted, the director issued a Request for Evidence ("WE) 
dated February 8,2008. In his WE, the director requested "documentary evidence of the scope, nature 
and significance" of the claimed awards. The director also noted that the "Cross of the Armed Forces" 
award does not appear to be in the petitioner's "field of endeavor." 
In response to the RFE, on March 17, 2008, the petitioner submitted a brief, and accompanying 
evidence. The petitioner's brief explained that the "Cross of the Armed Forces" award was given to 
the petitioner for "his regular participation in the Military Academy to speak to future National 
Guard and Coast Guard officers about fisheries, fishing gear and fishing vessels." The evidence 
provided included an Internet printout without the internet site referenced generally describing the 
award, a picture of the award and the Venezuelan regulations implementing the awards. The 
Venezuelan regulation provided indicates that the purpose of the "Cross of the Armed Forces" is "to 
reward the distinguished services given to the Army, the Navy, the Air Forces and the National 
Guard." None of the evidence provided established a connection between the petitioner's receipt of 
the award and his "field of endeavor." The petitioner's claims in his brief that the award was given 
to him for his participation in educating the military in various aspects of the fishing industry are not 
sufficient to meet his burden to show that the award relates to his "field of endeavor." Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comrn. 1972). 
The petitioner also submitted an additional letter from the IWMC President dated February 26,2008, 
in response to the WE. In the letter, the President again stated that the petitioner was nominated for 
"Seafood Personality of the Year" in 1998 and that the petitioner "met the IWMC criteria to be 
nominated." This letter fails to confirm whether the petitioner won this award. As no evidence 
exists showing the petitioner's "receipt" of this award, this award cannot be considered as evidence 
sufficient to meet this criterion. 
The petitioner also provided two pictures of awards he received from the Venezuelan Navy in 
recognition of his participation at the lSt Hydrographic Workshop in 1992 about Sea Sciences and 
for his participation as a speaker at the World Alimentaria Food Show (WAFS) in 1990. In addition, 
the petitioner's response brief also mentioned that he spoke at two conferences. However, 
recognition for participation and speaking at conferences are not prizes or awards that are nationally 
or internationally recognized. 
The director, in his July 14, 2008 decision, found the petitioner failed to provide evidence sufficient 
fulfill this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner did not submit any new evidence to support this 
criterion. 
We concur with the director and find the evidence submitted does not satisfy this criterion. 
Specifically, in addition to the above-detailed deficiencies, the petitioner also failed to provide 
documentation about the awards received by the petitioner such as evidence regarding the awards' 
prestige, selection process or candidates that the petitioner was competing against. Without such 
information, the petitioner failed to establish the national or international recognition of these 
awards. Finally, it is noted that as many of the petitioner's awards occurred a decade or close to a 
decade prior to the filing of his petition, the sustained acclaim required by this highly restrictive 
classification cannot be demonstrated. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien 's work in thejeld for which classijication is sought. Such 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the materia4 and any necessary 
translation. 
The petitioner initially submitted the following as evidence: 
1. A list of lectures, interviews, invitations and special events in which he has purportedly 
participated; 
2. A press release fi-om Storm Seafood dated March 2002 entitled, "Storm Seafood expands to 
Latin America," which indicated the petitioner will be joining the company as a Vice President; 
3. An article entitled, "Green Backlash," which referred to the petitioner as "another IWMC 
Specialist, and Former Minister for Fisheries in Venezuela" and noted his attendance at a press 
conference regarding a Venezuelan biologist; 
4. A press release dated May 25, 2006 from WiTEL Wireless Communications entitled, "Former 
Honduran President Ricardo Maduro joins venture to deliver affordable wireless and internet 
service across Central America;" 
5. An article entitled, "Maine Seafood May Find Market in Mexico," that quoted the petitioner as 
stating, "There's still a demand, but no scallops" and references hs title as International Sales 
Manager for Latin America for Ocean Garden Products, Inc. taken fi-om the 
www.hi&bearn.com website; 
6. An article in Exceso dated July 3 1, 1991 ; and 
7. An article in ServiAlimentos, entitled "Seafood." 
In his WE, the director asked for evidence to demonstrate the importance of the publications, the nature 
of the publications and the dates the articles were published. Additionally, the director requested 
information as to how the article "Green Backlash," that named petitioner as IWMC Specialist and 
former Minister for Fisheries in Venezuela, relates to his "field of endeavor." 
In response to the WE, the petitioner explained that most of his published material is unavailable to 
hm, as it is located in Mexico or Venezuela. In lieu of the original documents, the petitioner provided a 
description of his articles purportedly written by the IWMC. However, this description was not even on 
the organization letterhead, and therefore the reliability of its contents cannot be determined. Moreover, 
even assuming this list allegedly provided by the IWMC can be taken into consideration, it only 
describes one of the petitioner's articles as actually being published. As no new evidence was provided 
in response to the WE, the director could not conclude the petitioner met this criterion. On appeal, the 
petitioner failed to provide any new evidence. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulation, 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. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level fi-om a local publication. 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.1 
1 
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. 
Item 1 contains a list detailing the lectures, interviews, invitations and special events in which the 
petitioner purportedly participated. However, no independent evidence was offered to prove the 
petitioner's involvement in these engagements. More importantly, the petitioner provided no evidence 
that any publications resulted from these events. Mere participation or attendance at conferences, 
meetings and in interviews is not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
As it relates to items 2, 3, and 4, the petitioner has failed to submit evidence to establish that these 
materials were published in a professional or major trade publication or other major media, if published 
at all. Additionally, while items 2, 3, 4, and 5 may briefly mention the petitioner's name or quote a 
comment made by the petitioner, they are not considered to be about the petitioner. For instance, item 4 
only mentions the petitioner to the extent that he can be contacted for information about the article 
whch deals with wireless access and is otherwise unrelated to the petitioner's field of endeavor. 
Moreover, items 4 and 7 do not list the date of the material as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5@(3)(iii). 
The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Regl. Cornrnr. 1971). Without the required date of the material, we 
are unable to confirm that it was published prior to the filing of the petition. 
With regard to item 5, the petitioner submitted an Internet excerpt which indicates that this article was 
initially published in the Portland Press Herald on March 16, 2002. The record, however, does not 
contain the original article from the Portland Press Herald and the Internet excerpt from 
www.highbeam.com indicates that it is not the "111-text version" of this article. Even assuming 
arguendo that this article was published in the Portland Press Herald, the record contains no evidence 
to support that the Portland Press Herald or www.hirzhbearn.com constitute major media. As it relates 
to material contained on the Internet, we note that in today's world, many newspapers, 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. We are not persuaded that international 
accessibility via the Internet by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given publication is "major 
media." The petitioner must still provide evidence, such as, a widespread distribution, readership, or 
overall interest in the publication in order to demonstrate that the publication is a professional or 
major trade publication or major media in order for us to credit this article. 
Lastly, items 6 and 7 were not accompanied by a certified translation as required by the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. !j 103.2(b)(3). The AAO is, therefore, unable to determine whether the evidence supports the 
petitioner's claims. Accordingly, these articles are not probative and will not be accorded any weight 
in this proceeding. 
For all of the above stated reasons, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jeld, in profesional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner initially submitted the following as evidence of his authorship: 
1. 
 An abstract entitled "Trade Issues and Sustainability of Fisheries Resources," September 
2005; 
2. An abstract entitled "The Precautionary Principle: Replacing Science for Caution?;" 
3. "Sustainability and Selectivity:" 
4. "Overfishing in the Global Village;" 
5. "The Internet for Businesses-to-Business: Enabling Infrastructure for Competitiveness;" 
6. "Dolphins, Lies and Videotape;" 
7. "One More Call," dated May 14,2003; 
8. "Blood, Swear and Tears," October 4, 1998; 
9. "Operation 'Caribbean Shower,"' dated January 15,2001; 
10. "Love with Famine," January 18,2002; and 
1 1. "Everything You Wanted To Know About Shrimp." 
In his WE, the director asked for evidence to establish that each article had been published. The 
director also requested an explanation as to why the translation for item 11 indicates that the 
petitioner was the author, while the original document does not indicate the same. 
In response to the WE, the petitioner attempts to explain the discrepancy referenced by the director 
regarding item 1 1 by provided a page purportedly from the article that was not previously submitted. 
The additional page references the petitioner. The petitioner failed to provide a certified translation 
of this page as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), and therefore it is unclear whether the additional 
page is from the same article and whether it credits the petitioner for authorship. It is incumbent 
upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence. 
Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner 
submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the 
visa petition. Matter of Ho at 59 1. 
The petitioner also contends that item 11 is an educational publication directed to an uneducated 
market about seafood. Next, the petitioner submits a certified written translation of a 2-day seminar 
he gave entitled "Essentials of Environmental Sciences" and a Business and Marketing Plan he 
prepared. These two additional submissions were not supplemented with any evidence to prove they 
were published in any professional or major trade publications, or other major media. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted evidence of an additional article entitled "The Policy of Hunger," 
which he states in a letter to his attorney dated May 12, 2008 was published multiple times between 
May and June of 2008. The petitioner submitted the original articles, several of which did not 
contain dates. Those articles that list a date, indicate dates in 2008, as stated by the petitioner in his 
letter to counsel. As previously discussed, because these materials were published after his petition 
was filed, they may not be considered. A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of 
fbture eligibility or after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort 
to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 
169, 1 76 (Assoc. Cornrn. 1998). 
The petitioner has failed to submit evidence which demonstrates that any of the material listed in 
items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 were ever published in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. With regard to item 7, an Internet printout with the petitioner's article from 
gentiuno.com was provided as evidence. Yet no evidence about this source, the reliability of its 
contents or any other information to support the article's existence was submitted. As it relates to 
items 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, the petitioner failed to submit certified translations as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Without the proper certified translation, the AAO is unable to 
confirm the accuracy of the petitioner's statements regarding his claimed published materials. 
Accordingly, these articles are not considered probative and may not be accorded any weight in this 
proceeding. 
Finally, item 11 appears to have been published by Ocean Garden Products, Inc., the petitioner's 
former employer. The petitioner contends that this document was published as an educational 
publication directed toward an uneducated market about seafood. However, the petitioner has failed 
to provide evidence to establish that this "educational publication" generated by Ocean Garden 
Products, Inc. can be considered a scholarly article that has been published in major media, or a 
professional or major trade publication. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner initially submitted the following as evidence: 
1. An internet printout from www.iwmc.org with a list of the IWMC Board of Directors 
indicating that the petitioner is the 3rd Vice President for the IWMC; 
2. A letter from Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, dated April 17, 2002, indicating 
that the petitioner held officer positions in 1992 and 1993 and that he was "instrumental in 
achieving the accession of Venezuela to the Convention;" 
3. A letter from Inter-American Development Bank dated June 23,1997; 
4. A letter from the United States Department of Agriculture dated March 10,2002 detailing the 
selection of the petitioner to participate in their Cochran Fellowship Program; 
5. A letter from Ocean Garden Products, Inc. dated April 17, 2002 confirming the petitioner's 
employment with the company from 1998 through 2002 as an International Sales Manager 
and providing him with a recommendation; 
6. A letter from Venezuelan-American Chamber of Commerce stating his involvement on the 
Board of Directors from 2003 through 2005; 
7. A letter from AMLA Consulting dated June 16,2006 stating that the petitioner is a Managing 
Director of Ocean Pro 3 and is an "experienced international professional;" 
8. A letter from the petitioner, given the title of Executive Director of the Latin American 
Fishing Business Association, dated June 1 1, 1997, to 
 in Washington, DC; 
9. A letter from the petitioner to the Wall Street Journal of the Americas dated March 15, 1995; 
10. A Seminar presented by the petitioner as President of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna 
Commission in Ancona, Italy on May 13, 1994; 
1 1. A Speech given by the petitioner to the Committee on Fishing of the FA0 in Rome, Italy on 
April 11, 1991; 
12. A letter from the Latin American Fishing Business Association dated January 5, 1998 stating 
that the petitioner served as Executive Director from 1994 to 1997; 
13. A letter from the Ministry of Foreign Relations of the Republic of Venezuela dated May 3, 
1994; 
14. A letter from OLDEPESCA certifying that the petitioner was President of this inter- 
governmental organization from 1994 through 1995 and stating that he was the "key-person 
in the draft of the United Nations' FA0 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing and 
several International Accords, such as the Marine Turtle Protection Agreement and the 
Dolphin-Tuna Protection Agreement;" and 
15. A letter from IWMC World Conservation Trust dated June 25,2006. 
In the RFE, the director requested evidence of the criterion required in the selection of these official 
positions and also any accomplishments of the petitioner's while serving in these capacities. In 
response to the RFE, the petitioner provided the criteria for the IWMC Board of Directors and a 
picture of himself with various heads of state. On appeal, no new evidence was provided for this 
criterion. 
In order to establish that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or 
establishment with a distinguished reputation, he must establish the nature of his role within the 
organization or establishment and its reputation. The position should also be of such significance 
that the alien's selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim. In this instance, the petitioner and his references have merely 
listed the title held by the petitioner within these various organizations and companies. However, a 
title alone is not sufficient to establish the petitioner's role within a particular company or 
organization. Item 14 is the only evidence that addresses the petitioner's specific role within the 
organization and details his work and accomplishments for OLDEPESCA. 
The regulation also requires that documentation be submitted by the petitioner to establish that the 
various organizations, in which he purports to have performed leadership roles, have a distinguished 
reputation. Similar to the aforementioned reasoning regarding the title of a position, the name 
recognition associated with a particular organization or entity is not tantamount to a distinguished 
reputation. The petitioner failed to submit any evidence demonstrating the above-referenced 
organizations enjoy distinguished reputations. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). 
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 or 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 the national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
U.S. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
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. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.