dismissed EB-1A Case: Telecommunications Business

identifyingdatadeletedt& .
prevent clearly UnVif8Jr~te.
Mlvasionofpersonalpnvaq
... "PUBLICcorY
u.s.Department of Homeland Security
. 20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.s.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
FILE:
EAC 05 14552103
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: HAY 09 ~.7
INRE: Petitioner: .
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(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 bemade to that office.
)1wfA])VHlJtir)u
C ,Robert P. Wiemann, Chief
'1Y'" Administrative Appeals Office
www.uscis.gov
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 (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed.
The petitioner, a telecommunications company, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c.
§ 1153(b)(1 )(A), as an alien of extraordin~ry ability in business. The director determined the petitioner had
not established that the beneficiary has earned the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to
qualify for classification as an alien ofextraordinary ability.
On appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary satisfies at least three of the regulatory criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3).
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.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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, 60898-9 (November 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. § 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). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the
petitioner must show that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level.
The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(4), depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower
evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a
Page 3
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.;',
This petition, filed on April 22, 2005, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability in
the fieid of telecb~unications business development. At the time of filing, 'the beneficiary was a Senior
, '
Vice President, and Operations Support, and Chief Information Officer (CIO) at
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish
sustame nationa or mternational acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major,
international recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of a major internationally recognized award, the
regulation at 8 C.F.R.' § 204.5(h)(3) outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for a~ alien
to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has
submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria.
Documentation ofthe alien's receipt oflesser natioYfallyor interna'tionally recognized prizes
or awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor.
The' petitioner submitted infonnation printed from Telcordia Technologies, Inc. internet website stating that the
companyTeceived the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Experimentation Pioneer Award
for Smart Firewalls iIi 2002 and the 2003 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Communications SoCiety',sFred W. Ellersick Prize and the Baker Prize.
On appeal, counsel states: "These and other awards' were received as a result of the ex~mplary busin~s
leadership and skill demonstrated by [the beneficiary] in his executive roles with Telcordia TeChnologies,Inc."
.. .~.
The plain language of this criterion, however, requires evidence of "the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence." The documentation submitted by the petitioner
does not meet this requirement. There is no first-hand evidence showing,that the beneficiary himself was
named as a recipient of the aforementioned prizes and a\Vard. Rather than submitting primary evidence of the
award from the' DARPA or the prizes from the IEEE CommUnicationsSociety, the petitioner instead submitted '
information printed frorp its own internet website. In this instance, the petitioner has not complied with the'
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2) regarding the submission of secondary evidence. Specifically, the
petitioner has not demonstrated that the prizes and award listed above are unavailable or do not exist. Further,
according to the April 15,2005 letter of support submitted by , Vice President, Human Resources,
, the beneficiary was not recruited to work at her company until 2003. Therefore,
contrary to counsel's claim, the DARPA Experimentation Pioneer Award for Smart Firewalls from 2002 was not
"a result of the exemplary business leadership and skill demonstrated by [the beneficiary] in his executive roles
with Regarding the beneficiary's alleged contribution to the IEEE
Cominunications Society's Prize and Baker Prize received by , : in
2003, we note that thesep~inal papers published in the preceding year, 2002.1 Thus, we also
fmd that the beneficiary was not responsible for Telcordia Technologies Inc.'s receipt of these two prizes.
I Information accessed at http://www.comsoc.org/socsTRJorg!operationlawards/ellersick.htmlon April 18, 2007 states
that the Prize is awarded for "[p]ublication of an original paper in any Communications Society
magazine in the previous calendaryear." [Emphasis added.] Similarly, the' Prize Award ... is
Page 4
The petitioner also submitted a November 10, 2004 letter of support from I IP~nn~'~cl~·p~a~l,.:~:~:-
•••••• who supervised the beneficiary at his previous job at • states that
the beneficiary "was awarded the of the Year Award." Rather than submitting primary
evidence of the beneficiary's ,·the petitioner instead submitted a letter issued by one
of the beneficiary's former colleagues years 'after the award was presented. Once again, the petitioner has not
complied with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2), as it has not demonstrated that priinary evidence of
this award is unavailable or does notexist. Nevertheless, we find that the beneficiary's receipt of the I
••••••• of the Year Award from his employer at that time reflects institutional recognition rather
than national' or international recognition.
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion.
Documentation ofthe alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification
is sought, which require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as judged by recognized
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields.
In <;>rder to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, .the petitioner must show that
the association requires. outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership.
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or
experience, standardized test scores, grade point· average,recommendations by' colleagUes or current
members, orpayment ofdues, do not sati~fy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding
achievements. The overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership
requirements rather than the association's overall reputation.
On appeal, counsel argues that.the beneficiary's "[m]embership in the Rochester Chapter of IEEE requires a
significant level of achievement in the field. . .. Please see website of IEEE, available at:
The petitioner subniitted evidence printed from the . internet website, but none' of this
documentation identifies the beneficiary as a member. Nor is there evidence of the beneficiary's official
membership credential for the IEEE. 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. Comm.
1972)).
presented by the IEEE Board of Directors for the most outstanding paper, reporting original work, in the Transactions,
Journals and Magazines of the IEEE Societies, or in the Proceedings of the IEEE, issued between I January and 31
December. of the preceding year." [Emphasis added:] See http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/about/awards/
sums/baker.html, accessed on April 18, 2007. As the beneficiary has not been shown to publish telecommunications
research papers or to have worked for Telcordia Technologie~, Inc. at the time the winnin~ research papers were published
in 2002, we reject counser s claim that the petitioner's receipt of these prizes resulted from the beneficiary's leadership skills.
Page 5
Utilizing the internet website identified by counsel, the AAO was able to access the IEEE's membership
requirements at on April 18,
2007. As indicated on the website:
The grade of Member is limited to those who have satisfied IEEE-specified educational requirements
and/or who have demonstrated professional competence in IEEE-designated fields of interest. For
admission or ~ansfer to the grade of Member, a candidate shall be either:
• An individual who shall have received a baccalaureate (or equivalent) or higher degree
from an institution, and in an IEEE-designated field, which is included in the REP (Reference
List of Educational Programs) List defined in IEEEBylaw 1-104.10 or
• An individual who shall have received a baccalaureate (or equivalent) or higher degree
from an institution not included in the REP List and who has at least three years of
professional work experience engaged in teaching, creating, developing, practicing or
. ,
managing in an IEEE-designated field(s) included in the REP List,
. .'
• An individual who, through at least six years of, professional work experience in an IEEE-
designated field(s)' induded in the REP List, has demonstrated competence in teaching,
creating, developing, practicing or managing in that field(s), or
• An executive who, for at least six years, has had under his/her direction important technical,
engineering, or research work in IEEE-designated fields included in the REP List.
We do not·fmd that the preceding requirements for membership, which specify the minimum levels of education
and job.experience necessary for admission to the IEEE, are indicative of outstanding achievement in the field. In
this case, there is no evidence showing that the beneficiary holds membership in an association requiring
outstanding achievement or that he was evaluated by national or international experts in consideration of his
admission to membership. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion.
Published materials about the alien in prq{essional or major trade publications or other major'
media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldfor which classification is sought. Such evidence
.shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary translation.
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the beneficiary 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 or international level from 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.2
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, cannot
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county.
..~..
Page 6
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted material printed 'from sources such as
,The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century, the "Faculty News" section of the Rutgers
University School of Engineering internet website, the IEEE Rochester Chapter's internet website, and GIS
Weekly. None of this material mentions the beneficiary's name. The plain language of this criterion, however,
requires "published materials about the alien." Ifthe beneficiary is not the primary subject of the material, then it
fails to demonstrate hismdividual acclaim at the national or international level. Nor is there evidence showing
the preceding material was published in "professional or major trade publications or other major media."
The petitioner's response 'also included an article posted on the PR Newswire internet website entitled "NJTC
Names 'CIa of the Year.'" This May 10, 2005 article is primarily about the_
••••••• Council's2005 CIa Conference held on May 6,2005 and only mentions the beneficiary's
name in passing. Further, the author of the article was not identified as required by this criterion. The petitioner
also submitted a May 12, 2005 article entitled "[The beneficiary] at NJTC's CIa
Conference" posted on NEWStand, an internal newsletter maintained by 7 ' 'J' 7 1 1 • 1 "Corporate
Web Team.,,3 This article was not published in "professional or major trade publications or other major media,"
nor was the author identified. The petitioner also submitte9 an "Agenda" for the May 6, 2005 NJTC CIa
Conference posted on the NJTC's internet website. We cannot ignore that the publication date of the preceding
articles and the date of the NJTC conference occurred subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner,
however, must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at.the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12); see Matter
,ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 4~ (Comm.' 1971). Accordingly, the AAa will not consider the material relating to
the May 6, 2005 conference in this proceeding.
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion.
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholprly, artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributions ofmajor significance in the field.
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing the beneficiary's work at Telecordia Technologies and
Nortel Networks. Although we find that these letters are far more relevant to the leading or critical role
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), counsel argUes that the letters relate to the criterion at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) as well.
•••••••••••• Operations and Implementation, BellSouth Affiliate Services' Corporation, ,
states that he "had the opportunity to work closely with [the beneficiary] when he served as Vice President
and General Manager of Professional Services at Nortel." further states:
. [The beneficiary] is recognized as a businessperson of extraordinary abilityin this industry based
upon his leadership in developing and reorganizing leading telecommunications companies. [The,
beneficiary] has served in critical'capacities in highly respected telecorrimunications firms, and his
. career path is one of increasing prominence. [The beneficiary's] extraordinary business acumen is
3 Text appearingat the bottomof this articlestates: "TELCORDIAPROPRIETARY- INTERNALUSE ONLY. This .,
websitecontainsproprietaryinformationthat shallbe distributed,routedor made availableonly withinTelcordia.... "
Page 7
reflected. by his success ill senior level telecommunications managerial positions, including his
current assignment ... at the renowned finn, •••••••••••
[The beneficiary] was recruited to join £SE2idi& based on his reputation thioughout the world as a
leader in the telecommunications industry~ Specifically, he was recruited to lead the turnaround of the
process by which projects are carried out at the company. One of [the beneficiary's] key contributions
was the development of a new office within Specifically, he replaced what was known as
the Program Management Office of with an entirely newfunctional unit known as ..
••••••••••••••• _.). This new entity within the company now centrally
oversees the end-to~end deliverables of all projects carried out at the company and ensures that
projects are carried out in accordance with Telcordia's schedule, quality, and cost standards. The
.innovative project management structure implemented by [the beneficiary] also changed the way that
project costs are accounted for within the company such that _ serves as a cost center. In addition
to leading Telcordia's' project management function, [the beneficiary] also oversees the company's
customer 'service..
Prior to joining _ [the beneficiary] had a highly successful career with
where he served in vice presidential capacities for over ten years. . ... In this capacity, .[the
beneficiary] ran a $500 million business unit that, among other activities, managed the surveillance of
BellSouth :Long Distance, Inc.' s' long distance network. While at ; he showed a particular
. expertise in building and directing new organizations and alliances to profitability and in optimizing
operational processes. He also excelled in instilling a strong customer service ethic in his highly
technical managers, whiChis often a difficult"achievementamong leaders of organizations focused on
technology development.
[The beneficiary's] Success in leading roles with and _ demonstrates his superior
ability to drive the various disciplines involved in the provision of telecommunication services to
meet the goal of flawless execution of deliverableson time, within budget, and of the highest quality.
••••• president,~-:::::~states that he worked.closely with the ben~ficiarY throughout his
career with _Networks. i further states: .
I served in a series of Executive capacities with , most recently as President. of
• * *
Before joining Telcordia,.[the beneficiary] served in a succession of key roles at 1lEd Networks.. '..
For instance, as the Vice President of [the beneficiary] held
responsibility for directing the company's Service. In this position, [the
beneficiary] oversaw one thousand people co'veringthe Engineering, Planning, Installation, and Post
In Service Technical Support for i' Products. He also managed the restructuring of a .
large services infrastructure within the company as well as the pursuit of new revenue opportunities.
As such, [the beneficiary] reduced a $400 million services infrastructure to a $150 million level and
Page 8.
increased Post In Service revenues by 40% to $70 million. The global qUality initiatives that he
implemented streainlined the company's operations and improved customer satisfaction by ten
percentage points.
During his tenn as Vice President & General Manager of_Managed SerVicesdivision, [the
beneficiary] led the company's global managed services business across all technologies, including
switching, access, transport backbone, and metrooptical products. Under his leadership, this unit of
the company enjoyed $500 million in revenues, which was a 25% increase in the company's revenue
line. In directing this critical division, [the beneficiary] managed four Operation Centres
throughout the world, which included a population of one thousand employees. In directing the
company's managed services division, [the beneficiary] created a global .... platfonn for the
efficient support of global customer networks and also implemented a major alliance with a .
prominent IT consulting finn. He also led the launch of Private Labeled Service offering.
As the Vice President & General Manager of Professional Services for _, [the beneficiary]
created and launched a Professional Services business unit, also consisting of one thousand people,
which enabled 2i3ilEi to offer a complete end-to-end solution for the and Emerging Carrier
markets. [The beneficiary's] leadership in launching this critical business unit resulted in revenue
growth from $150 to $400 million and also enabled the company to secure and deliver a $200 million .
contract with a major carrier.
Further, as the Vice President of Director, [the beneficiary] headed the
entire research and development component of International Switching Software and •••
•••• Hardware platfonns. In' directing the development of this research and development
function, [the beneficiary] was responsible for a Unit that consisted of 2300 employees and a $250
million budget. The laboratories he managed were located in the U.K., Turkey, Canada, and China
and the research carried out by this unit supported Llargest business unit at the time. Under his
leadership, the unit delivered 1IUd 3first multi-processing computer platfonn and integrated three
software products into one global software load. He also transitioned the development of deliverables
to an ON Time, ON Cost discipline.
Moreover; as Vice President of , [the beneficiary]
managed the company's provision of customer service, including wireless and wireline products and
technical support f9r all of 1 markets. As such, [the beneficiary] designed and'
implemented 1 1Product Support organization. In this capacity, an organization of two·
thousand people was under. [the beneficiary]'s direction and he was responsible for directing the
company's engineering, installation, emergency and field services, systems engineering, and new
product introduction functions.
states:
In directing the Optical Networks component of)f I business, [the beneficiary] carried out this
daunting task in an environment characterized by substantial overcapacity in the marketplace. [The
beneficiary's] innovations in implementing global quality initiatives and streamlining
Page 9
operations resulted in an improvement in customer satisfaction considerably. He also enhanced new
product information techniques via customer service ramp management and design for serviceability.
During his tenure with ilL Networks, [the beneficiary] also led the company's global managed
services business. This responsibility included managing four 7 I k Operation Centres employing
1000 people. Specific initiatives led by [the beneficiary] in this phase of his career included launching
_ Private Labeled Service offering creating a global _ platform for efficient support of
global customer networks, and implementing a major alliance with a prominent IT consulting firm.
Moreoyer; as the leader of I Professional Servic.esfunction, [the beneficiary] built a business
unit forthe company that eventually consisted of 1000 employees. The portfolio of serviCesoffered
by this unit included Planning 2i Build and Verification, Product Support; OSS
Solutions, and Managed Services.
While in [the beneficiary] also led the company's research and development function for its
international switching software and global switching hardware platform. This was an extremely
critical role within the company's global organization as the company's largest business unit focused
on the DMS ioo familY'of switches. As such, [the beneficiary] successfully redirected the proper
focus of research and development of the company to achieve its business .goals. He developed the
•••••• liesign team, which focused on ATM and IP telephone solutions. Further, he delivered
the IDC New Node Project to Japan:
In addition, [the beneficiary] led l' support function. In this
critical role, [the beneficiary] managed a population of 2000 employees who carried out technical
support services for the company. [The beneficiary] directed the second line technical support for all
global markets of as well as the Repair and Return organization within the company. As such,
[the beneficiary] enhanced new product introduction fur. the company by migrating service
considerations to the design phase. Under his leadership, ]f l? Isoftware fix defect rates improved
to 90% and engineering and installation margins improved by 12%. He also chaired the Users'
Forum and other similar initiatives with Canadian telecommunication companies.
•••••• , Chief Executive Officer, 1:., states:'
During his tenure at I have been impressed with [the beneficiary's] extraordinary ability to.
draw upon his business acumen and extensive experience in the. field' to lead the development of
business structures that enable new telecommunications products to be successfully.marketed and
implemented. We recruited [the beneficiary] to join 7 because we identified him as one of
only a few individuals in the world capable of leading a major turnaround at our company.
Specifically, [the beneficiary] joined to lead the implementation of a major troubleshootin~
project. [The beneficiary] created a new business structure by replacing Program
Management Office with a Q' I I Implementation and Operation Support ; ; system that he
developed. [The beneficiary] designed this project management function such tha,t the quality,
schedule, and costs of development projects are now centrally owned. This new office
. within oversees the end-to-end deliverables of development projects carried out at the
Page 10
company, and the improvement in our productivity, quality, and customer satisfaction has been
dramatic.
While the preceding letters indicate that the beneficiary was successful in senior level.telecommunications
managerial positions at Technologies and s, there is no evidence showing that the
,work attributable to him has had a substantial national or international impact beyond these companies. We
accept that the beneficiary is admired by those with whom he has worked for adeptly handling his managerial
responsibilities, but the evidence submitted by the petitioner is not adequate to demonstrate that· the
beneficiary is recognized throughout the greater field for original contributions of major significance in the
telecommunications indu·stry. The record does not indicate the extent of the beneficiary's influence on others
in this field, nor does it show that the field as a whole has somehow changed as a result of his work.
With regard to the personal recommendation of individuals who have worked with the beneficiary, the
source of the recommendations is a highly relevant consideration. These letters are not first-hand evidence
that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim for his contributions beyond' those
individuals who are close to him. The statutory requirement that an alien have "sustained national or
international acclaim," however, necessitates evidence of recognition beyond direct acquaintances of the
benefiCiary. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act.
The petitioner also submitted an evaluation letter addressed to counsel and prepared by:••••••••••
an "education and employment research consultjng finn" located in New Jersey. This letter includes opinions
from Dr. r, past chainnan and tenured Associate Professor of Computer Information Systems
on the facility of the County College of Morris, New Jersey, Dr: T 7 8 J • J j J i Associate
Professor of Marketing at the University of Massachusettsat Amherst, and Dr. , Associate Professor
and Chairman of the Connecticut State University. The
evaluation letter states:
Throughout his career, [the beneficiary] has performed at the height of excellence as a superior
telecommunications manager. He has been and is employed in critical and essential capacities in
various organizations, both in the U.S. and in Canada. His combination of technological development,
marketing and management prowess is a rare one in the telecommunications industry. His expertise i~
marketing, computer information technology and customer relations place him in the top echelon of
management in the telecommunications industry. His high level positions with Nortel and Telcordia,
recognized industry leaders, further indicate his high level of skill.
* * *
Taken as a whole, it is clear that [the beneficiary] has a unique set of skills and it appears to be clearly
the case that the "totality of circumstances" lead to the logical conclusion that he is an alien of
extraordinary ability in the field of telecommunications and business management.
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful
extraordin,ary ability claim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as
expert testimony. See Matter ofCaron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). However, CIS is
;,,.
Page 11
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit
sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of
eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See
id. at 795-796. Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the beneficiary's
reputation are important considerations. For example, experts who were previously aware of the 'alien's
accomplishments through his reputation in the field are more persuasive than experts who were previously
unaware of the alien and are providing an opinion based on a review of the alien's credentials as provided by the
alien.
In this instance, none of the preceding experts from Educated Choices state that they were aware of the
beneficiary's reputation in the telecommunications industry prior to being requested to review his job experience
and credentials. Further, while their observations are relevant to the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), their analysis fails to. specifically identify and elaborate upon original contributions of
major significance in the telecommunications industry directly attributable to the beneficiary. 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 a business executive who has sustained national or international acclaim. The benefit sought in the
present matter is not the type for which documentation is typically unavailable and the statute specifically requires
"extensive 40cumentation" to establish eligibility. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Without extensive
documentation showing that the beneficiary's work has been unusually influential or highly acclaimed
throughout the greater field (beyond his employers), we cannot conclude thafhe meets this criterion.
Evidence that' the alien has peiformed in a leading or critical role :for organizations or
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. .
The petitioner submitted the aforementioned letters of support and other evidence establishing that the
beneficiary performed in a leading role in executive positions (such as CIa and Vice President) for distingUished
organizations such as Telecordia Technologies and Nortel Networks. Therefore, the petitioner has established
that the beneficiary meetsthis criterion.
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration
for services, in relation to others in thefield.
The petitioner submitted the beneficiary's Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statements, showing that he earned
$260,219.62 in 2003 and $435,568.17 in 2004. The petitioner also submitted national wage statistics showing
that the beneficiary's compensation was significantly high in relation to others in his field. Therefore, we find
thepetitioner's evidence is adequate to demonstrate that the beneficiarymeets this second criterion.
In this case, we find that the beneficiary meets only two of the regulatory criteria, three of which are required
to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner has failed to, demonstrate the beneficiary's
receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be
satisfied to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as ,an alien of extraordinary apility.
Page 12
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary 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 beneficiary's achievements set him significantly
above almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not
established the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) 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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.