dismissed EB-1A Case: Sports Educational Development

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.ChizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
2()MassachusettsAve N.W., MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: M j 2 2$2OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If youbelievetheAAO inappropriatelyappliedthelaw in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen
in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebe aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requiresany motion to be filed
within 30 daysof thedecisionthat themotion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: Theemployment-basedimmigrantvisapetitionwasdeniedby theDirector,Texas
ServiceCenter,onMarch24,2011,andisnowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)on
appeal.Theappealwill bedismissed.
The petitioner seeksclassificationas an employment-basedimmigrant pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A),asan
alienof extraordinaryability asa vicepresidentin sportseducationaldevelopment.Thedirector
determinedthatthepetitionerhadnot establishedthe requisiteextraordinaryability andfailedto
submitextensivedocumentationof sustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthe
statutethat the petitionerdemonstrate"sustainednational or internationalacclaim" and present
"extensivedocumentation"of hisor herachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct and8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement,
specificallya major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthe receiptof suchan award,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificevidence.8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). The
petitionermustsubmitqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof
evidencetoestablishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
In thedirector'sdecision,shedeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto establisheligibility for aone-
timeachievementpursuantto theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3),theawardscriterionpursuant
to the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),the publishedmaterialcriterionpursuantto the
regulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),thejudgingcriterionpursuantto theregulationat8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv),the original contributionscriterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v),the scholarly articles criterion pursuantto the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi),andtheleadingor critical role criterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Moreover,the directorindicatedthat the petitionerfailed to submit any
evidencerelatingthe membershipcriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v),
theartisticdisplaycriterionpursuanttotheregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204,5(h)(3)(vii),thehighsalary
criterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix),and the commercialsuccess
criterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(x).On appeal,counselspecifically
requeststhe AAO to reviewthe director'sdecisionregardingthe awardscriterion,thepublished
materialcriterion,andthejudgingcriterion. Accordingly,theAAO considerstheremainingissues
tobeabandonedandwill notfurtherdiscussthemonappeal.SeeSepulvedav. U.S.Att'y Gen.,401
F.3d1226,1228n. 2 (11thCir. 2005);Hristovv.Roark,No.09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885
at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept.30, 2011)(the court found the plaintiffs claims to beabandonedashe
failedtoraisethemonappealtotheAAO).
I. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
Page3
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available. . . to qualified
immigrantswho arealiensdescribedin any of the following subparagraphs(A)
through(C):
(A) Alienswith extraordinaryability.-- An alienis describedin this
subparagraphif --
(i) thealienhasextraordinaryability in thesciences,
arts,education,business,or athleticswhichhasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednationalor international
acclaim and whose achievementshave been
recognized in the field through extensive
documentation,
(ii) the alien seeksto enter the United Statesto
continueworkintheareaof extraordinaryability,and
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill
substantiallybenefitprospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S. CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalization
Service(lNS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta very highstandardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723101"Cong.,2d
Sess.59(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29, 1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"
refersonlytothoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefieldof
endeavor.Id.: 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstratethe alien's
sustainedacclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbe
establishedeither throughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(that is, a major, international
recognizedaward)or throughthesubmissionof qualifying evidenceunderat leastthreeof theten
categoriesof evidencelistedat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,the U.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinth Circuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof a
petitionfiled underthisclassification.Kazarianv. USC/S,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010).Although
the court upheldthe AAO's decisionto deny the petition, the court took issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meeta givenevidentiarycriterion) With respectto thecriteria
at 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhile USCISmayhaveraised
legitimateconcernsaboutthe significanceof the evidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,
thoseconcernsshouldhavebeenraisedin a subsequent"final meritsdetermination Id. at 1121-
22.
1Specifically,thecourt statedthattheAAO hadunilaterally imposednovelsubstantiveor evidentiaryrequirements
beyondthosesetforthin theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO's evaluationrestedonanimproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthe typesof evidenceprovided(which the AAO did)," andif the
petitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"the properconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed
to satisfythe regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at
1122(citingto8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazarian setsforth a two-partapproachwherethe evidenceis first countedand then
consideredin thecontextof a final meritsdetermination.In thismatter,theAAO will reviewthe
evidenceundertheplainlanguagerequirementsof eachcriterionclaimed.As thepetitionerdidnot
submitqualifyingevidenceunderatleastthreecriteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitioner
hasfailedto satisfytheregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
II. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
Theplainlanguageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)requires"[d]ocumentationof the
alien'sreceiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein
the field of endeavor." Moreover,it is the petitioner'sburdento establisheligibility for every
elementof thiscriterion.Notonlymustthepetitionerdemonstratehisreceiptof prizesandawards,
hemustalsodemonstratethatthoseprizesandawardsarenationallyor internationallyrecognized
for excellencein thefield of endeavor.In otherwords,thepetitionermustestablishthathisprizes
and awardsare recognizednationallyor internationallyfor excellencein the field beyondthe
awardingentities.
In the director's decision, she statedthat the petitioner submittedthe following documentary
evidence:
1. A documententitled,"Awards of Appreciation: The SalvationArmy-
HispanicCorpsGala2007";and
2. The petitioner'sresumeindicatingthat he receivedthe "EnglishFootball
AssociationBusinessof Football,""EnglishFootballAssociationAdvanced
Marketing & Administration,"and "FIFA [InternationalFederationof
AssociationFootball]Volunteerof theYear2001."
2On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot claim to meetany of the regulatorycategoriesof evidencenot discussedin this
decision.
Page5
Furthermore,thedirectordetermined:
This criterionhasnot beenmet becausethe SalvationArmy awardappearsto be
localor regionalin nature.Theevidenceof recordappearsto indicatetheawardwas
givento individualsin theAtlantaareaonly. Althoughtheevidenceindicatedothers
participatedin thepartnershipactivities,therewasno evidenceto indicateothers
outsideof Atlantawereconsideredfor theawardor participatedin theselectionof
the recipientsof the award. As such,[the petitionerhas]not demonstratedthe
receiptof a lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedaward.Further,it hasnot
beenestablishedthattheawardwasgivenfor excellencein [thepetitioner's]fieldof
endeavor,or thattheprimarypurposeof theawardwasto recognizeexcellencein
[the petitioner's] field. The evidenceof recordappearsto indicatethe awardwas
given as a token of appreciationin partnershipwith the SalvationArmy.
Additionally,[the petitioner]providedno evidenceto demonstratereceiptof the
EnglishFootballawards.
In responseto theNOID,[thepetitioner]providedapersonalletter,amongstothers,
in which [the petitioner]statedthat [he] hadpreviouslysubmittedcertificatesof
awardsthat[hehas]received.[Thepetitioner]indicatedthat[he}suppliedcopiesof
certificatesfor internationallyrecognizedawards from the English Football
AssociationBusinessof Football certificate of distinction, English Football
AssociationAdvancedMarketingcertificateof excellence,[and] EnglishFootball
AssociationAdvancedAdministrationcertificateof excellence. However,the
evidenceof recorddoesnot containsuchevidence,nor did [the petitioner]provide
this evidencewith the responseto the NOID. This evidenceis only referredto by
[the petitioner's]resume. As such,USCISis unableto verify that [the petitioner]
receivedtheseawardsor the criteriausedfor the selection. Thus,the evidence
submitteddoesnotmeetthiscriterion.
On appeal,counselonly conteststhe 2001FIFA Volunteerof the YearAward andclaimsthat
"[t]his awardwasacombinedawardgivenby boththeInternationalOlympicCommittee,theworld
governingbodyof Olympicsports,and[FIFA), theworld governingbodyof soccer." TheAAO
thereforeconsiderstheSalvationArmy AwardandtheEnglishFootballAssociationawardsto be
abandonedandwill not andwill not furtherdiscussthemon appeal.SeeSepulvedav. U.S.Att'y
Gen.,401F.3dat 1228n. 2;Hristovv.Roark,No.09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at *1, *9
(thecourtfoundtheplaintiff's claimsto beabandonedashefailedto raisethemon appealto the
AAO). TheAAO notesthata reviewof therecordof proceedingfailsto reflectthatthepetitioner
submittedanydocumentaryevidenceregardinghispurportedEnglishFootballAssociationawards.
Goingonrecordwithoutsupportingdocumentaryevidenceisnotsufficientfor purposesof meeting
theburdenof proofin theseproceedings.MatterofSoffici,22I&N Dec.158,165(Comm'r 1998)
(citingMatterof TreasureCraftofCalifornia,14I&N Dec.190(Reg'lComm'r1972)).
Regardingthe 2001FIFA Volunteerof the YearAward,on appeal,counselsubmitsa certificate
thatreflects:
Page6
To commemoratethe InternationalYearof Volunteers,the InternationalOlympic
Committeeand[FIFA] paytributeto [the petitioner]for havingcontributedtime,
effortandenthusiasmtothesuccessof footballcompetitionsandto thepromotionof
friendshipandsolidarityamongpeoples.
Thecertificatedoesnot indicatethatthepetitionerreceived
Instead,thecertificatesimplyacknowledgesthepetitionerfor hiscontributions,effort,and
time to football. The certificatedoesnot supportthe petitioner'sclaim on his resumethat he
received Going on recordwithout supporting
documentaryevidenceis not sufficientfor purposesof meetingthe burdenof proof in these
proceedings.MatterofSoffici,221&NDec.at 165(citingMatterof TreasureCraftof California,
14 I&N Dec. at 190). Moreover,the petitionerfailed to submit any documentaryevidence
demonstratingthattheawardisnationallyor internationallyrecognizedfor excellencein hisfieldof
endeavor.
Furthermore,evenif the etitionerwereto submitsupportingdocumentaryevidenceshowingthat
hereceived andit meetsall of theelementsof thiscriterion,which
he hasnot, section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act requiresthe submissionof extensiveevidence.
Consistentwith that statutoryrequirement,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(i)requiresmorethanonenationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizeor awardfor
excellencein thefield of endeavor.Significantly,notall of thecriteriaat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)arc
wordedin the plural. Specifically,the regulationsat 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and (ix) only
requireserviceonasinglejudgingpanelor asinglehighsalary.Whenaregulatorycriterionwishes
to includethe singularwithin the plural, it expresslydoesso as when it statesat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)thatevidenceof experiencemustbein theformof "letter(s)."Thus,theAAO
caninfer thattheplural in the remainingregulatorycriteriahasmeaning.In a differentcontext,
federalcourtshaveupheldUSCIS'ability to interpretsignificancefrom whetherthe singularor
pluralis usedin a regulation.SeeMaramjayav. USCIS,Civ.Act. No.06-2158(RCL)at 12(D.C.
Cir. March26,2008);Snapnames.comInc. v.Chertoff,2006WL 3491005at *10 (D. Or. Nov.30,
2006)(upholdingan interpretationthatthe regulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a
foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2)requires a single degree rather than a
combinationof academiccredentials).On appeal,counselonly claimedthe petitioner'seligibility
for thiscriterionbasedononeaward.
As discussedabove,the plain languageof this regulatorycriterionspecificallyrequiresthat the
petitionerdemonstratehis receiptof nationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor
excellencein hisfield. In thiscase,thepetitionerfailedto demonstratethathemeetstheelements
of thiscriterionconsistentwith theplainlanguageof theregulationat8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i).
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedtoestablishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Publishedmaterialaboutthealien in professionalor major tradepublicationsor
othermajor media,relating to thealien's work in thefieldfor whichclassificationis
Page7
sought. Suchevidenceshall includethe title, date,and author of thematerial,and
anynecessarytranslation.
Theplain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requires"[p]ublishedmaterial
aboutthe alien in professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia,relatingto the
alien's work in the field for which classificationis sought." In general,in orderfor published
materialto meetthis criterion,it must be primarily aboutthe petitionerand, as statedin the
regulations,beprintedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.To qualify
asmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor internationaldistribution.Some
newspapers,suchastheNewYorkTimes,nominallyserveaparticularlocalitybutwouldqualifyas
majormediabecauseof significantnationaldistribution,unlike smalllocal communitypapers.'
Furthermore,theplainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii)requiresthat"[sjuch
evidenceshallincludethetitle,date,andauthorof thematerial,andanynecessarytranslation."
On appeal,counselclaimsthat the directordisregardedthe evidenceand submittedadditional
documentationon appeal. A review of the recordof proceedingreflectsthat the petitioner
submittedthefollowingdocumentation:
Regardingitems1 - 3, a reviewof the screenshotsfail to reflectpublishedmaterialaboutthe
petitionerrelatingto hiswork in thefield. Regardingitem 1,thescreenshotis about
underprivilegedHispanicchildrenin theAtlantaarea.In fact,thescreenshotquotesthepetitioner
onetime andis not aboutthepetitioner.TheAAO notesthatthepetitionerfailedto includethe
Even with nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmust be given to the placementof the article. For
example,an article thatappearsin the WashingtonPost, but in a sectionthat is distributedonly in Fairfax County,
Virginia,for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividual'sreputationoutsideof thatcounty.
Page8
authorof the materialas requiredpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Regardingitem 2, the screenshotis aboutCL FinancialSanJuanJablotehpartnershipwit
The petitioneris mentionedone time by
ho "applaudedtheeffortsby [thepetitioner]of Thereis no
discussionabout the petitionerthat would qualify for this criterion. Regardingitem 3, the
screenshotis aboutthe creationof the largestever football shirt. The screenshotquotesthe
petitioner regardingthe shirt, but it is not publishedmaterialaboutthe petitioner relating to his
work. Furthermore,thepetitionerfailedto submitanydocumentaryevidencedemonstratingthat
anyof thewebsitesaremajormedia.TheAAO isnotpersuadedthatarticlespostedontheInternet
from a printedpublicationor from anorganizationareautomaticallyconsideredmajormedia.The
petitionerfailed to submit independent,objectiveevidenceestablishingthat the websitesare
consideredmajormedia. In today'sworld,manynewspapers,regardlessof sizeanddistribution,
postat leastsomeof their storieson theInternet. To ignorethis realitywould be to renderthe
"major media"requirementmeaningless.However,the AAO is not persuadedthatinternational
accessibilityby itselfisarealisticindicatorof whetheragivenwebsiteis "majormedia."
Regardingitem4, thepetitionerfailedto includethedateof thearticleasrequiredpursuantto the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Regardless,a reviewof the article reflectsthat it is
publishedmaterialaboutthepetitionerrelatingto hiswork. However,thepetitionerfailedtosubmit
any documentaryevidenceestablishingthat SouthernSpirit is a professionalor major trade
publicationor othermajormedia.
Regardingitem 5, while the chaptercontainssomebrief referencesand quotationsfrom the
petitioner,the chapteris about football sponsorshipratherthan publishedmaterialabout the
petitionerrelatingto his work. In addition,the petitionerfailed to submit any documentary
evidencereflecting that Football Sponsorship& Commerceis a professionalor major trade
publicationor othermajormedia.
It is notedthat counselalso claimedthe petitioner'seligibility for this criterion basedon a book
review by the petitioner for the International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship
(IJSMS). The plain languageof the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iii) requiresthat the
publishedmaterialbe"about" thepetitionerrelatingto his work in thefield for which classification
is sought. However,articlesauthoredby the petitionerarenot articlesabouthim relatingto his
work. Thus,while the petitioner'sreviewis not relevantto this criterion,it will be considered
belowasit relatestothejudgingcriterionundertheregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv).
Again, the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requires"[p]ublished
materialaboutthealienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia,relatingto
thealien'swork in thefield for whichclassificationis sought."Theburdenis onthepetitioñerto
establishthathemeetseveryelementof this criterion. In this case,thepetitionersubmittedone
articlethatwaspublishedmaterialabouthim relatingto his work but failed to demonstratethat
SouthernSpirit is a professionalor major tradepublicationor othermajor media. Evenif the
petitionerestablishedthatthe articlefrom SouthernSpirit meetseveryelementof this criterion,
Page9
which he hasnot, the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii)requires
publishedmaterialin morethanonepublication.
Accordingly,thepetitionerfailedtoestablishthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceofthe alien'sparticipation, eitherindividuallyor on apanel. asajudge of
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specificationfor which
classificationis sought.
Theplainlanguageof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)requires"[e]videnceof thealien's
participation,eitherindividuallyor on a panel,asajudgeof thework of othersin thesameor an
allied field of specificationfor which classificationis s t." In the director'sdecision,she
determinedthattheletterfrom .whoclaimedthat
the petitionerwasa memberof the editorialadvisoryboardfor I/SMS was insufficientwithout
documentaryevidenceto suppor Asindicatedabove,thepetitionersubmitted
on appealdocumentaryevidencereflectingthatheservedasa reviewerfor I/SMS. As such,the
petitionersubmittedsufficientdocumentationestablishingthathemeetstheplainlanguageof the
regulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv).Therefore,theAAO withdrawsthefindingsof thedirector
forthiscriterion.
Accordingly,thepetitionerestablishedthatheminimally meetsthiscriterion.
B. Summary
Thepetitionerhasfailedto satisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.
III. O-1NONIMMIGRANT
TheAAO notesthatatthetimeof thefiling of thepetition,thepetitionerindicatedthathewaslast
admittedto theUnitedStatesasan0-1 nonimmigrantonOctober3,2008.However,whileUSCIS
hasapprovedat leastoneO-1 nonimmigrantvisapetitionfiled on behalfof thepetitioner,theprior
approvaldoesnotprecludeUSCISfrom denyingan immigrantvisapetitionbasedon a different,if
similarly phrased,standard.It mustbe notedthat manyI-140 immigrantpetitionsaredeniedafter
USCIS approvesprior nonimmigrantpetitions. See,e.g.,Q Data Consulting,Inc. v. INS, 293 F.
Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C.2003);IKEA USv. USDept.of Justice,48 F. Supp.2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999);
FedinBrothersCo.Ltd. v.Sava,724F. Supp.1103(E.D.N.Y.1989).BecauseUSCISspendsless
time reviewing I-129 nonimmigrantpetitionsthan 1-140immigrantpetitions,somenonimmigrant
petitionsaresimplyapprovedin error.QDataConsulting,Inc.v.INS,293F. Supp.2dat29-30;
seealsoTexasA&M Univ.v. Upchurch,99 Fed.Appx.556,2004WL 1240482(5thCir. 2004)
(findingthatpriorapprovalsdonotprecludeUSCISfrom denyinganextensionof theoriginalvisa
basedonareassessmentof petitioner'squalifications).
The AAO is not requiredto approveapplicationsor petitionswhereeligibility has not been
demonstrated,merelybecauseof priorapprovalsthatmayhavebeenerroneous.See,e.g.,Matterof
Page10
ChurchScientologyInternational, 19I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). It would be absurdto
suggestthatUSClSor anyagencymusttreatacknowledgederrorsasbindingprecedent.Sussex
Engg.Ltd. v.Montgomery,825F.2d1084,1090(6thCir. 1987),cert.denied,485U.S.1008(1988).
Furthermore,the AAO's authorityover the servicecentersis comparableto the relationship
betweena courtof appealsanda districtcourt. Evenif a servicecenterdirectorhasapproveda
nonimmigrantpetition on behalf of the alien, the AAO would not be bound to follow the
contradictorydecisionof a servicecenter.LouisianaPhilharmonicOrchestrav. INS, 2000WL
282785(E.D.La.),affd, 248F.3d1139(5thCir.2001),cert.denied,122S.Ct.51(2001).
An applicationor petitionthatfails to complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelaw maybe
deniedby theAAO evenif theServiceCenterdoesnot identifyall of thegroundsfor denialin the
initial decision.SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d at 1043,affd, 345
F.3dat 683; seealsoSoltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145(3d Cir. 2004)(notingthat the AAO
conductsappellatereviewonadenovobasis).
IV. CONCLUSION
The documentationsubmittedin supportof a claim of extraordinaryability must clearly
demonstratethatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandisoneof the
smallpercentagewhohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Even if the pelitionerhad submittedthe requisiteevidenceunder at least three evidentiary
categories,in accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits
determinationthatconsidersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror not thepetitionerhas
demonstrated:(1)a "levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualisoneof thatsmallpercentage
who haverisen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor"and (2) "that the alien hassustained
nationalor internationalacclaimandthathisor herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield
of expertise."8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(2)and(3); seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.Whilethe
AAO concludesthattheevidenceis not indicativeof a levelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmall
percentageat thevery top of thefield or sustainednationalor intemationalacclaim,theAAO need
notexplainthatconclusionin afinal meritsdetermination/ Rather.theproperconclusionis thatthe
petitionerhasfailed to satisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.kl.
at i122.
Thepetitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthe
petitionmaynotbeapproved.
The AAO maintainsdenovo reviewof all questionsof fact andlaw. SeeSoltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3dat 145. In any
futureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdictionto conducta final meritsdeterminazionastheoffice thalmadezhe
lastdecisionin this matter, 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealsosection103(a)(l)of theAct; section204(b)of theAct;
DHSDelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch1,2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1(2003);8 C.F.R.§ 103.I(f)(3)(iii) (2003);
Matterof Aurelio, t9 I&N Dec.458,460(BIA 1987)(holdingthatlegacyINS,nowUSCIS,is thesoleauthority
with thejurisdiction to decidevisapetitions).
Page11
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of
the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Here,the petitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden. Accordingly,the
appealwill bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.