dismissed EB-1A Case: Special Education

identifying data &1eted t6 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
invaeloa d prsoaal Pmacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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. 
 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
5 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 3 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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. $204.5(h)(3): 
Initial evidence: A petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that 
the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise. Such evidence shall include evidence of a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, international recognized award), or at least three of the following: 
(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 materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which claisification 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 specification for which classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scieqtific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship - of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media; 
(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 successqs in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
This petition, filed on November 19, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a Director of Special Education. In 
 ~ovember 17, 2004 letter accompanying the petition, the 
petitioner states: "I worked at several institutions in lsrael in the capacity of Director, Special Education. 
Over the years, I have helped hundreds of children in their fragile lives coming from broken homes and to 
have a sense of well being and stability [sic]. I want to use my skills and experience in running like 
institutions in the United States." 
The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. The record reflects that the 
petitioner has been residing in the United States since March 1998. Given the length of time between the 
petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than six years), it is reasonable to 
expect him to have earned national acclaim in the United States during that time. The petitioner has had 
ample time to establish a reputation in this country. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 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, international 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. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the fie13 for which classiJcation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
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 distributian. An alien would not earn 
acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication or from a publication in a language that most 
of the population cannot comprehend. 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.' 
The petitioner submitted several local newspaper articles that briefly mention his work managing religious 
education facilities. There is no evidence showing that these publicitions had substantial national readership. 
Further, the majority of these articles did not include the title, date, and author of the material as required by 
this criterion. Finally, the petitioner failed to submit evidence showing that he has been the subject of media 
coverage subsequent to the early 1990's. The absence of published material in major media during the last 
decade indicates that the petitioner's acclaim has not been sustained. Without evidence demonstrating that 
the petitioner has been the subject of major media attention in recent years, we cannot conclude that he meets 
this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate he meets at 
least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 2045(h)(3). 
Beyond the regulatory criteria, the petitioner submitted correspondence confirming his activities as a religious 
educator. Such letters are not first-hand evidence that the petitioner has earned sustained national or 
international acclaim. Pursuant to the statute and regulations, the classification sought requires documentary 
evidence of sustained national or international acclaim, and the petitioner cannot arbitrarily replace such 
evidence with attestations from various individuals who express their appreciation for his work as a religious 
educator. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) requires documentation meeting at least three of the ten 
criteria. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act provides 
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 exten~ive documentation than that required" for lesser 
classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). The criteria require specific documentation beyond 
mere testimony, such as awards, published material about the alien, and evidence of a high salary. While letters 
of support from one's associates may place the evidence for the regulatory criteria in context, they cannot serve as 
primary evidence of the specific achievements required by the regulatory criteria. Further, while the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(4) permits "comparable evidence" where the ten criteria do not "readily apply" to the alien's 
' 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, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
occupation, the regulation neither states nor implies that letters af support attesting to the alien's accomplishments 
are "comparable7~ to the strict documentation requirements in the regulations setting forth the ten criteria.* 
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. Therefore, the petitioner 
has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. -5 204.5(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 h.e or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The brief, vague statement in the petitioner's November 17, 2004 letter does not constitute 
clear evidence of his employment intentions in the United States. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the-grounds for denial in the initial decision. 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 Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002.n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
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, fhe 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. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 
 In the present case, there is no indication that eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be 
established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation.