dismissed EB-1A Case: Shooting

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
identifying data deleted to 
 U.S. Citizenship 
prevent clearly unwmnted and Immigration 
invasion of persona\ privacy 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 1 3 2009 
LIN 07 169 51539 
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. 5 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. 5 103.5 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). 
/YLbdhck, 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 in athletics. 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. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had 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). The director also determined that the petitioner had not submitted 
clear evidence that he would continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3) and that the petitioner has submitted comparable evidence of his extraordinary ability in 
the form of recommendation letters. 
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. fj 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 
Page 3 
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 May 21, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability "in the sport of shooting." In an April 13, 2007 "Statement of Intent" accompanying the 
petition, the petitioner states that he is "an accomplished professional shooter." The petitioner 
further states: "I will continue my profession by representing the United States in various 
nationallinternational championships in the sport of shooting. I will also impart my knowledge/skills 
and train individuals in the sport so that they can represent the United States at the highest level." 
The petitioner's continuation of his work in the United States as required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) 
of the Act and the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) will be addressed later in this decision. 
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. 
5 204.5(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. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
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 submitted certificates reflecting that he attended and successfblly completed 
various police tactics and weapons training courses. There is no evidence establishing that these course 
completion certificates equate to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the petitioner's field. 
The petitioner also submitted the following: 
1. 
 Photograph of "National Champion Police Shooting" trophy (1995) for the standard 
category from the International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) and a certificate 
issued by the Venezuelan Shooting Federation and the IDPA stating that the petitioner 
was "National Champion 'Police Revolver"' (1 995); 
2. 
 Photograph of "National Champion Police Shooting" trophy (1996) for the standard 
category from the IDPA and a certificate issued by the Venezuelan Shooting 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
Federation and the IDPA stating that the petitioner was "National Champion 'Police 
Revolver"' (1 996); 
3. 
 Photograph of "National Champion Combat Shooting" trophy (1997) for the standard 
category from the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC); 
4. 
 Photograph of "VIII National Championship Combat Shooting" 1'' place trophy for 
the standard category (November 1997); 
5. 
 Photograph of "V National Championship Combat Shooting" 1" place trophy for the 
standard category (August 1997); 
6. Photograph of the IPSC National Champion trophy for the master category 
(November 2000); 
7. Photograph of the "I1 National Championship Olympic Shooting" trophy for the 
"Rimfire Open Category 75 meters" (September 2001); 
8. Photograph of "National Champion Combat Shooting" trophy (2001) for the standard 
category and a certificate issued by the Venezuelan Shooting Federation and the 
IDPA stating that the petitioner was "National Champion" for the "'Sharp-Shooter' 
Pistol Production" category (2001); 
9. 
 Photograph of "South American Olympic Shooting" 2nd place trophy for the "Rimfire 
50 meters Master" category (2001); 
10. Photograph of "3rd Place Police Shooting" trophy for the master category (October 
2001) 
1 1. Photograph of the "National Champion 2002" trophy for the revolver master category 
from the IDPA and a certificate issued by the Venezuelan Shooting Federation and 
the IDPA stating that the petitioner was "National Champion" for the "'Sharp- 
Shooter' Pistol Production" category (2002); 
12. Photograph of a medal from the "Regional Championship" in Puerto La Cruz, 
Venezuela (200 1); and 
13. Photograph of a medal from the "Regional Championship" in Valencia, Venezuela 
(2000). 
With regard to the photographs of the petitioner's trophies and medals, we note that these awards do 
not bear an inscription of the petitioner's name. Further, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3), any 
document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English 
language translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The 
English language translations accompanying the photographs of the petitioner's trophies were not 
certified by the translator as required by the regulation. With regard to items 12 and 13, these 
medals reflect regional recognition rather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in shooting. 
The petitioner also submitted a certification from the General Secretary of the Venezuelan Shooting 
Federation stating: 
[The petitioner] is credited with the following awards: 
Page 5 
- 1995 National Shooting Champion (Police Revolver) 
- 1996 National Shooting Champion (Police Revolver) 
- 1997 National Shooting Champion (IPSC) 
- 2000 National Shooting Champion (IPSC) 
- 2001 National Shooting Champion (IDPA) 
- 2001 National Shooting Champion (IPSC) 
- 2002 National Shooting Champion (Police Revolver) 
The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that 
petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his 
burden to establish every element of this criterion. The record, however, does not include supporting 
evidence demonstrating the significance and magnitude of the shooting events in which the 
petitioner competed. For example, there is no evidence indicating number of competitors in the 
petitioner's "standard" and "master" categories or documentation demonstrating that those 
categories represented competition at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). In this 
case, there is no evidence establishing that the petitioner's awards were received in top level 
competition and that they had significant national or international recognition in his field beyond the 
context of the sporting events where they were presented. 
Nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards won by individuals trained or coached 
primarily by the petitioner can also be considered for this criterion. The record, however, does not 
include evidence demonstrating that individuals under the petitioner's tutelage have won nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards in shooting. 
Finally, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner or his trainees have received prizes or awards in 
shooting competition subsequent to 2002. On May 20, 2008, the director issued a request for evidence 
(RFE) to the petitioner stating: "The record does not have evidence of awards later than 2002. Provide 
evidence that you have continued to be recognized for shooting and training since 2002." 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted several certificates reflecting that he attended and 
successfUlly completed a Level 1 Police Tactical Shooting Course (September 2006), a "Basic Course" 
in Tactical Rappelling (January 2007), a course in Confined Area Interventions (January 2007), a 
"Tactical Pistol XI" course (July 2007), a Tactical Carbine training course (July 2007), and a National 
Rifle Association "Basic Pistol Course" (January 2008). The petitioner completed the latter three 
courses subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at 
the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. 
Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the courses from July 2007 and January 
2008 in this proceeding. Nevertheless, there is no evidence establishing that these training course 
completion certificates equate to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the petitioner's field. 
Counsel cites to an AAO decision in a previously decided, unpublished case for an art director for the 
contention that "nationally recognized honors . . . indicate sustained national acclaim." Pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(c), designated and published decisions of the AAO are binding precedent on all 
Page 6 
USCIS employees in the administration of the Act. However, unpublished decisions have no such 
precedential value. Nevertheless, we find that the present case is easily distinguishable from the 
cited matter. 
 For example, in the decision involving the art director, the AAO stated: 
 "The 
petitioner has won four of these awards, one award for each of the four years preceding the filing of 
the petition. The petitioner's awards thus indicate sustained acclaim in his field." We concur with 
the AAO's reasoning in the cited matter. However, in the present case, unlike the cited matter, the 
petitioner has not received any nationally recognized prizes or awards in the four years preceding the 
filing date of the petition. Without qualifying evidence proximate to the date of filing, the petitioner 
has not demonstrated that his national or international acclaim as a professional shooter or shooting 
trainer has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 
8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). The awards submitted by the petitioner are not consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim as of the date of filing of this petition and, thus, are insufficient to 
meet this criterion without additional evidence under this criterion or other criteria documenting the 
petitioner's more recent national or international acclaim as a shooter. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzjcation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
The petitioner submitted an undated letter from the Director of Sport Sponsorship for Banesco 
Universal Bank stating that the petitioner is a "member of the 'BANESCO SHOOTING TEAM."' 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from stating that the petitioner was a 
member of Venezuelan National Guard Shooting Team, but the record does not include evidence 
from the Venezuelan National Guard confirming his assertion. 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 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comrn. 1972)). While membership on an Olympic team 
or a major national team such as a World Cup soccer team may serve to meet this criterion as such 
teams are limited in the number of members and have a rigorous selection process, it is the 
petitioner's burden to demonstrate that he meets every element of a given criterion, including that he is 
a member of a team that requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts. We will not presume that every national or professional "team" is 
sufficiently exclusive. Without evidence showing, for instance, the selection requirements for the 
petitoner's Banesco and National Guard shooting teams, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets 
the elements of this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted an undated letter from the Secretary General Secretary of the Venezuelan 
Shooting Federation and an identification card from 2001 as evidence of his membership in the 
federation. The petitioner also submitted an undated letter from Chief 
Executive Officer, Argos Group, LLC, stating that the petitioner is an "active member" of his 
organization. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner was also a member of the National Rifle 
Association. The petitioner, however, has not submitted his membership credential for the National 
Rifle Association identifying him as a member. Further, there is no evidence (such as membership 
bylaws) showing the official admission requirements for the preceding organizations. As previously 
indicated, 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. at 158, 165. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence of his participation as an instructor or student in training 
programs offered by such organizations as Alpha Tactical, Armament National Armed Forces, 
Weapons Division of the National Armed Forces, and the Isla de Margarita Police Department. The 
petitioner has not established that his participation as an instructor or a student in these training 
programs equates to "membership in associations in the field." 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the Venezuelan Shooting Federation, Argos Group, 
Banesco Shooting Team, Venezuelan National Guard Shooting Team, or the various organizations 
for which the petitioner provided or received training required outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an 
allied one. Accordingly, 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 the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level fiom a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the Nav York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.2 
The petitioner submitted a six-sentence article entitled "International Championshp in the Tiuna Fort in 
Caracas I.P.S.C." in the January 7, 1998 issue of Poligono Libertador. The petitioner also submitted a 
four-sentence article entitled "Olympic Shooting South American and Caribbean Games" in the April 
30, 2002 issue of Meridiano, but the author of the material was not identified as required by the plain 
language of this reaulatorv criterion. The petitioner's initial submission also included a five-sentence 
- - 
article by entitled "Internatio~al Match IDPA," but the name and date of the publication 
in which the article appeared were not provided. Further, the preceding three articles were not primarily 
about the petitioner and only mention his name in passing. The plain language of this regulatory 
criterion, however, requires that the published material be "about the alien." 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted an affidavit fiom stating: 
2 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 8 
1. I am a United States citizen and I have lived in Valencia, Venezuela for approximately 24 
years from 1969 to 1993; 
2. That I have personal knowledge of the newspapers such as "Meridiano" "El Diario" are 
national newspapers having a large circulation in Venezuela. 
does not identify or provide the source of her circulation information. Nor 
affidavit explain how living in Valencia, Venezuela from 1969 to 1993 gives 
her direct personal knowledge of the circulation of ~enezuelan publications subsequent to 1993. We 
further note that there is no evidence in the record showing that an article about the petitioner was 
published in El Diario. With regard to 
 opinions as expressed in her affidavit, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2) provides: 
Submitting secondary evidence and affidavits. (i) General. 
 The non-existence or other 
unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
 If a required 
document, such as a birth or marriage certificate, does not exist or cannot be obtained, an 
applicant or petitioner must demonstrate this and submit secondary evidence, such as church or 
school records, pertinent to the facts at issue. If secondary evidence also does not exist or 
cannot be obtained, the applicant or petitioner must demonstrate the unavailability of both the 
required document and relevant secondary evidence, and submit two or more affidavits, sworn 
to or affirmed by persons who are not parties to the petition who have direct personal 
knowledge of the event and circumstances. Secondary evidence must overcome the 
unavailability of primary evidence, and affidavits must overcome the unavailability of both 
primary and secondary evidence. 
In this instance, the petitioner has not "overcome the unavailability of both primary and secondary 
evidence" showing Meridiano's circulation in Venezuela. As stated above, the nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. Id. Even if the petitioner 
were able to demonstrate that circulation information for Meridiano does not exist or cannot be 
obtained, which he has not, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2) requires "two or more affidavits, 
sworn to or affirmed by persons who are not parties to the petition who have direct personal 
knowledge" of this issue. Furthermore, notwithstanding the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(2), the statute and regulations governing the classification sought by the petitioner require 
him to submit "extensive documentation" demonstrating his sustained national or international 
acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, the affidavit from 
 does not establish that Meridiano 
qualifies as a form of major media. 
In this case, there is no objective evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that the 
publications mentioning the petitioner qualify as professional or major trade publications or some 
other form of major media. Even if the petitioner were to submit objective evidence demonstrating 
that those publications qualify as major media, as discussed, the material submitted by the petitioner 
does not meet the remaining elements of this regulatory criterion. Finally, aside from the 
aforementioned deficiencies, we cannot ignore the lack of evidence for this regulatory criterion from 
May 2002 to the petition's filing date. As previously noted, the statute and regulations require the 
petitioner to demonstrate that his national or international acclaim has been sustained. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several recommendation letters. 
~inistr~ of Defense, Politechnique Experimental University of the 
Armed Forces, Caracas Branch, states that the petitioner was "an outstanding participant in the 
weapons sports." 
[The petitioner and I] were in the same Shooting Team, sharing good times and winning 
championships during the period that I lived in Venezuela. 
During the time being shooters mates from the early 907s, we get a lot of awards and medals 
in most of our participations. [The petitioner] was an example of moral, loyalty and teaching 
for me and the rest of the team as well. 
states: "[The petitioner] and I were members of the same shooting team for 
about six years, and friends since 1989. Always working hard to win any competition, national or 
international championship. [The petitioner] has always showed incredible ability and 
professionalism in his field . . . ." 
Captain, Venezuelan Army, who served with the petitioner, states: 
 "[The 
petitioner] has always showed incredible ability and professionalism in his field and has gained a 
great reputation and high recognition throughout Venezuela as a good person and incredible 
champion shooter." 
states: "During the time being shooters mates from the mid 907s, [the 
petitioner and I] had the opportunity to be Chief of our Military Shooting Team, sharing good time 
- - 
 - - 
and good moments, getting a lot of awards and medals in most of our participations." 
Chief of Training, National Police, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, states: 
[The petitioner] is a friend of mine since 1996, we worked together in training course in 
Brazil four years ago to the National Police Department of Rio de Janeiro. Three weeks of 
intense training with excellent results for our Department. 
He has always been in the top ranking police shooting, and he has showed incredible 
professionalism and respect for everyone. 
We acknowledge the petitioner's submission of the preceding reference letters from various 
individuals praising his talent in shooting and discussing his training and experience. Talent and 
activity in one's field, however, are not necessarily indicative of original contributions of major 
significance. Several of the reference letters mention the petitioner's success in shooting 
competition, but this evidence has already been addressed under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3)(i). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct 
from one another. Because separate criteria exist for competitive awards and original contributions 
of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view these criteria as being interchangeable. If 
evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the 
requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. In this case, the record 
lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has made original contributions that have significantly 
influenced or impacted his field. 
With regard to the petitioner's achievements as a competitor and an instructor, the reference letters 
do not specify exactly what his original contributions in shooting have been, nor is there an 
explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major significance in his field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner may have helped those under 
his tutelage improve their shooting skills, the documentation submitted by him does not establish 
that he has made original athletic contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the 
record does not indicate the extent of the petitioner's influence on other shooters nationally or 
internationally, nor does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result of his work so as to 
demonstrate the petitioner's significant contribution to his field. 
In this case, the reference letters submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
These letters, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary 
ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal 
contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the writers' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 
Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major 
significance that one would expect of that one would expect of a shooting competitor or an instructor 
who has sustained national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that 
the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has 
otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude 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. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must 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. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner has performed in a leading role for "elite organizations" 
including Argos Group LLC, the Emergency Management and Rescue Team in Venezuela, the 
Venezuelan Shooting Federation, the Venezuelan Armed Forces, Alpha Tactical, the National Rifle 
Association, the Isla Margarita Police Department, Surefire Law Enforcement, the Metropolitan Police 
Department, the Venezuelan Department of Defense, and the National Police Department of Rio de 
Janeiro. 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). There is 
no supporting evidence showing that the organizations for whch the petitioner taught, served, or 
competed had distinguished reputations. 
 Further, while the record includes brief letters from 
representatives of the Venezuelan Shooting Federation, Argos Group LLC, Alpha Tactical, the 
National Police of Rio de Janeiro, and members of the Venezuelan Armed Forces, the limited content 
in their letters is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's role for the preceding organizations 
was leading or critical. The letters lack information regarding the specific nature of the petitioner's role 
and how his role differentiated him from the other individuals in the organizations. In this case, the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the success or 
standing of the preceding organizations to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical 
role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence 
to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). Further, there is no 
evidence showing that the petitioner's national or international acclaim in shooting has been 
sustained. 
 See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 11 53(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). Specifically, the record does not include evidence of nationally or internationally 
acclaimed achievements and recognition subsequent to 2002. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the recommendation letters submitted by the petitioner should be 
considered as comparable evidence of his extraordinary ability. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria "do not 
readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes the consideration 
of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no evidence that eligibility for visa preference in the 
petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of the regulatory criteria, the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of 
comparable evidence. 
Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that the documentation the petitioner requests evaluation 
of as comparable evidence constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. We note that the petitioner's 
recommendation letters have already been addressed under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3)(v). While recommendation letters can provide useful information about an alien's 
qualifications or help in assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters are not comparable to 
extensive evidence of the alien's achievements and recognition as required by the statute and 
regulations. The nonexistence of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
8 103.2(b)(2)(i). The classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national 
or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing the statute 
provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is 
reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that 
required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Primary evidence of 
achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than opinion statements from individuals 
selected by the petitioner. 
The director also found that the petitioner had not submitted clear evidence that he would continue to 
work in his area of expertise in the United States. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(5) requires 
"clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of 
expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of 
prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on 
how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the United States." As previously noted, the 
petitioner submitted an April 13, 2007 "Statement of Intent" stating: 
I am an accomplished professional shooter . . . . 
I will continue my profession by representing the United States in various 
nationallinternational championships in the sport of shooting. I will also impart my 
knowledge/skills and train individuals in the sport so that they can represent the United States 
at the highest level. 
The content of the petitioner's brief statement does not provide sufficient information detailing his 
plans for continuing his work as a professional shooter in the United States. For example, the 
petitioner does not specify the national or international shooting competitions in which he intends to 
compete or the organizations that have expressed an interest in hiring him as shooting instructor or 
coach. Further, we cannot ignore the existence in the record of a December 8, 2006 letter from 
NCM Supplies, a manufacturer and supplier of telecommunications products,3 stating: "The 
petitioner] has been working in this company as an International Sales Manager since July 15,2001, 
showing to be a diligent and responsible person fulfilling his duties. Monthly Salary is $2,175.00 
plus bonus." The director's decision noted that "the petitioner has been employed in the United 
States but not as a shooter." The petitioner's employment as a Sales Manager with NCM Supplies in 
Miami is not clear evidence that he is coming to the United States to continue to work as a 
professional shooter. 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. Id. at 591. On appeal, the petitioner does 
not contest the director's findings regarding this issue. Accordingly, based on the petitioner's 
employment in the United States as a Sales Manager and the deficiencies in his April 13, 2007 
"Statement of Intent," we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has not 
submitted clear evidence that he will continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
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 a national or international 
level. Nor is there clear evidence demonstrating that the petitioner will continue to work in his area of 
expertise in the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to 
sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
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. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
See h~://www.ncmsupplies.com, accessed on July 23,2009, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding.