dismissed EB-1A Case: Security Consultant

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwmeed 
invasion of personal privacy 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 06 262 51618 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 0 2 2009 
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: 
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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
g->s/z 
bhn F. Grissom, ActlnK - 
f Administrative Appeals Ofice 
/I 
LIN 06 262 51618 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center. On appeal, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) remanded the matter for further 
action. The matter is now before the AAO upon certification of the director's subsequent, adverse 
decision. The decision of the director will be affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability," pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established that he qualifies for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
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. 4 204.5(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). 
This petition, filed on September 12,2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a security consultant. As the facts and procedural history have been adequately documented 
in the previous decision of the AAO, we will only repeat certain facts as necessary here. In this case, 
the director initially denied the petition on April 11, 2007, finding that the petitioner failed to 
establish sustained national or international acclaim and that he is recognized as one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. In the AAO's August 8, 2008 
decision on appeal, the AAO concurred with the director's determination but remanded the petition 
LIN 06 262 51618 
Page 3 
for issuance of a new decision specifically addressing the deficiencies in the petitioner's evidence for 
each of the applicable regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Upon remand, the director issued 
a new decision on September 25, 2008, which found that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had not 
established that he meets the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), (viii), and (ix). The 
director certified his decision to the AAO for review and notified the petitioner that he could submit 
a brief to the AAO within 30 days of service of the director's decision. To date, no further 
submission has been received. Accordingly, the record is considered to be complete as it now 
stands. 
Upon review, we concur with the director's findings. The relevant evidence as it relates to the 
regulatory criteria was discussed in the director's decision and in the previous decision of the AAO. 
The petitioner has submitted no further evidence since the issuance of the AAO's appellate decision. 
The evidence of 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. Consequently, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and his petition must be denied. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision of September 25,2008 is affirmed. The petition is denied.