dismissed EB-1A Case: Urban Developer

·dentifying data deleted t~ed 
t ent clearly unwarratl 
~. of personal prwac) mvasion 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 2 5 2011 
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. § I I 53(b)(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been retumed to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Fonn 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.ER. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
. • I 
///"11/ 'I. I ,- ....... , '- ~---,., ' ... ' v,,--
.' Perry Rhew 
" Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on August 11, 2009, 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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such 
an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
I. Law 
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 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USC IS) 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 H.R. 723 10 I Sf Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. [d. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the 
following ten categories of evidence. 
(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 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; 
(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 specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles m the field, m 
professional or major trade publications or other milior 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; 
Page 4 
(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 successes in the perfonning arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. l With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits detennination." /d. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits detennination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS detennines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits detennination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 FJd 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 FJd 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel, substantive, or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition. filed on April 28, 2009, seeks to classify the petItIOner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as an urban developer. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to 
the following criteria under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, the petitioner failed to claim eligibility for this 
criterion. However, in response to the director's request for additional evidence pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8), counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion 
and argued: 
The selection of as an event venue and the national and 
international acclaim of as a venue in and of itself equates to awards by the 
~ious and world recognized organizations in charge of such events, like 
_ The use of [the petitioner's] projects as an example by the City of Miami, 
the County of Miami-Dade, and the US Conference of Mayors further 
reemphasizes the acclaim that [the petitioner's] work enjoys. 
In the director's decision, he found: 
The record does not contain any independent evidence to substantiate the alien's 
claim of international or national awards. The award must go to the alien rather 
than to an organization or group of individuals with which the alien is affiliated. 
It cannot be found that this element is satisfied. 
On appeal, counsel failed to contest the decision of the director or offer additional arguments. 
Accordingly, we deem this issue to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 
1226, 1228 n.2 (lith Cir.2005). Nevertheless, we note that the plain language of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "ld]ocumentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor l emphasis 
added]." Counsel's argument in response to the director's request for additional evidence is not 
persuasive as the mere selection to hold events at places the petitioner rehabilitated or revitalized 
does not equate to the petitioner's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence. Moreover, while we generally agree with the director's findings that an 
"award must go to the alien rather than to an organization or group of individuals," we note that 
the record of proceeding fails to contain any awards or prizes that were won by organizations or 
groups of individuals affiliated with the petitioner. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
-Page 6 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish 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 the director's decision, he found: 
Documentation submitted for this element included evidence of press releases, 
web promotion, and other media coverage of events being held in the rehabilitated 
and revitalized Miami area. Clearly this is not the same as published material 
written about the merits of an individual's work, the individual's standing in the 
field or the impact his work has had on the field. 
On appeal, counsel argued: 
The publications provided in the petition and the RFE response noted specific 
publications in professional and major governmental media specifically relating to 
the alien's work. The work was performed by the alien, and the alien is clearly 
the owner of the entities used for purposes of limitations on liability. 
* * * 
All of these sources discussed and identified [the petitioner's j work in brownfield 
redevelopment and urban blight renewal. The mere fact that [the petitioner] did 
not and does not seek publicity by name does not change the fact that I the 
petitioner's] work specifically has been lauded by local and national 
governmental organizations, and in international news media. Taking the view of 
the examiner, if [the petitionerl were mentioned by name in connection with these 
same publications, then this requirement would have been met. However, we 
believe the purpose of the criteria is to provide an objective method of 
demonstrating some form of recognition of the alien. Such recognition of the 
alien need not state the alien's name if the alien's specific work is recognized. 
The act of recognizing the work at all is the recognition of the alien as having 
notoriety in his abilities. Otherwise, the award of an Oscar to a movie for Best 
Picture would mean that the director of such movie or the actors in the movie do 
not have extraordinary ability or acclaim - but rather only the movie itself. 
Likewise, if the publications presented were short works or articles that focused 
only on the petitioner's work, such publications would be primarily or solely 
about the petitioner. However, inclusion of numerous individuals and projects 
appears to give the examiner pause. This would be akin to saying that a magazine 
Page 7 
such as Architectural Digest, that highlights the work of numerous architects, 
would not be sufficient to be primarily about one of the highlighted architects. 
We are not persuaded by counsel's arguments. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p]ublished 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." The burden is on the petitioner to establish every element of this 
criterion. 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. 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? 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted voluminous amounts of 
documentation for this criterion. However, the petitioner failed to submit any documentation 
reflecting any published material about him regarding his work. Instead, the petitioner submitted 
documentation that merely mentioned a venue or an event that took place at a location revitalized 
or rehabilitated by the petitioner. Articles that are not about the petitioner do not meet this 
regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 
8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
The vast majority of these documents consisted of press releases, Internet blogs and promotions, 
.. email blasts," official event websites, event programs, and announcements or advertisements for 
fashion and art events. The petitioner failed to establish that these promotional materials equate to 
professional or major trade or other media. almost all of the 
documents were etc. The 
petitioner's field is in urban development and not art and fashion. Therefore, the documentation 
fails to meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requiring 
that the published material "relat[ e 1 to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought." We cite some representative examples: 
1. April 30, 2007, 
mentioned that_ 
in Miami's new 
District." article failed to even mention the 
petitioner and did not discuss the petitioner's work; rather the article was 
about Miami Fashion Week; 
3 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 onl y in Fairfax County. 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 8 
2. 
being selected as 
about the petitioner. In fact, the article did not event mention or discuss the 
location of the event or refer to anything about the petitioner's work; and 
3. A screenshot December 1, 2007, 
by posted on www.onlinc.wsj.com. The article was 
not about the petitioner relating to his work but about Miami 
Beach. The petitioner was not mentioned in the article, nor did the article 
discuss the petitioner's work. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that such evidence shall include 
"any necessary translation." In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § J03.2(b) provides in pertinent 
part: 
(3) Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to uscrs 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which 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 record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted a significant amount of 
documentation without any English language translations, let alone fully certified translations. 
Because the petitioner failed to comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §J03.2(b)(3), the AAO 
cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the 
evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
provides some background information about brownfields, they are not published material about the 
petitioner regarding his work. In fact, only one document entitled, ~' from 
~entioned the petitioner in one sentence stating that "[tlhe remain~s been 
sold to British developers [the petitioner] and who to tum the property into a 
live-work artists' colony." The document is about a whole and not about the 
petitioner and his work. Further, the petitioner to' any of the documents were 
published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
We note here that the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that 
"[ s luch evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material." Almost all of the 
documents submitted by the petitioner failed to contain the title, date, and/or author of the 
material. As noted above, even though a few documents contained all of those elements, the 
documents were not published material about the petitioner relating to his work. 
Page 9 
In addition, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) requires that the 
material be published in "in professional or major trade publications or other major media." At 
the time of the original filing of the petition and in response to the director's request for 
additional evidence, counsel also claimed that features of the fashion shows on television stations 
such and_ and a radio station, 
_ reflected the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. 
counsel failed to submit any documentary evidence supporting his assertions4 and the claimed 
reporting was on fashion shows and not about the petitioner relating to his work, the plain 
language of the regulation clearly reflects "[p]ublished material." As such, the coverage on radio 
and television stations does not meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(iii). 
Finally, we note that the petitioner submitted numerous screenshots of material that was posted 
on the Internet. However, we are not persuaded that postings on the Internet, as well as postings 
from a printed publication, are automatically considered major media. The petitioner failed to 
submit independent, supporting evidence establishing that the websites are considered major media. 
In today's world, many newspapers, regardless of size and distribution, post at least some of their 
stories on the Internet. To ignore this reality would be to render the "major media" requirement 
meaningless. However, we are not persuaded that international accessibility by itself is a 
realistic indicator of whether a given website is "major media." 
As evidenced above, the petitioner failed to establish that there has been published material 
about him regarding his work in the field of urban development in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media pursuant to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(iii). The submission of documentation reflecting media coverage and promotion of 
fashion shows and art festivals, which took place at locations that the petitioner revitalized, does 
not meet the plain language of the regulation. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
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. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for 
this criterion by stating: 
4 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 Ohaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Lallreano, 19 I&N Dec. 1.3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Page 10 
As an expert in the rehabilitation and renovation of blighted urban real estate, [the 
petitioner] has continuously served as a judge of the work of other professionals 
who have participated in the conceiving, designing, negotiating, and building of 
urban real estate rehabilitation projects. Teams of the most talented professionals 
available including architects, developers, attorneys, CPA's, marketing experts 
and real estate brokers. 
Counsel failed to submit or refer to any documentation supporting his assertions. 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. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter 
of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel did not address this criterion 
in his written response, nor did counsel submit any documentary evidence regarding this 
criterion. In the director's decision, he found that the petitioner failed to submit any 
documentary evidence and failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, counsel 
failed to contest the decision of the director or offer additional arguments. Therefore, we deem 
this issue to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
At the time of the original filing of the petition, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for 
this criterion by stating: 
and the historic 
community in core, which has 
helped pave the way for rapid community development, the growth of a major arts 
district, and renewed investment in the communities by national business after 
decades of abandonment, are contributions of major significance. 
Counsel failed to submit or refer to any documentation supporting his assertions. In response to 
the director's request for additional documentation, counsel claimed: 
[The petitioner] has been the first to successfully rehabilitate a brownfield site in 
Florida under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requirements, and is one 
of the pioneers in the field of brownfield rehabilitation, being the first to 
successfully rehabilitate a toxic site in the state of Florida under the US 
Environmental Protection Agency's program. It is his work that has served as a 
blueprint for others, and has inspired others to do the same. 
Page II 
In support of counsel's claims, he submitted the following documentation: 
1. 
2. 
A document entitled, 
City of Miami"; 
A letter from 
107; and 
the 
Florida State Representative, District 
3. A letter from_Director of the Office of Film & Entertainment for 
Miami-Dade County. 
In the director's decision, he found that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. On appeal, counsel argues: 
The original petition included numerous photos and descriptions of revitalization 
projects completed by [the petitioner] on behalf of celebrities and governmental 
entities, including a historical World War II hospital facility. Accordingly, we are 
unclear as to why the examiner states that evidence of rehabilitation and 
revitalization of urban areas other than Miami, Florida is missing. . .. [T]he 
brownfield project that [the petitioner] has completed is of statewide and national 
importance - not local to Miami alone. It is for this reason that the project is 
highlighted as the first guidelines 
completed in Florida, not j work is 
included in the report of the US Conference of Mayors, also stated above in 
connection with the publications. If [the petitioner's] work and original 
contributions were solely of local significance to Miami, then there would have 
been no reason or justification to highlights such work in a publication submitted 
to 1201 mayors across the entire United States. Finally, the supporting letters 
provided from local and state officials, and international developers, indicate the 
original contributions of [the petitionerj in the field. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the 
alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." In compliance with Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain 
language of the regulatory criteria. 596 F.3d at 1121. Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see 
whether it rises to the level of original contributions "of major significance in the field." A 
review of the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner, as well as additional 
recommendation letters that were not specifically submitted for this criterion, reflects that the 
petitioner has made original contributions. the petitioner has established that he has 
successfully rehabilitated and developed areas in the Miami-Dade County and 
surrounding areas. However, the plain regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
does not merely require the petitioner to establish original contributions but requires those 
original contributions to be "of major significance to the field." In this case, the petitioner failed 
to demonstrate that his redevelopment of properties in the Miami-Dade County and surrounding 
Page 12 
areas are of major significance to the field as a whole and not limited to the selected areas in 
which the petitioner has rehabilitated. 
We note that at the time of the original filing of the petition, counsel claimed that the petitioner 
"rehabilitated numerous historic and other properties in England and other areas in the world." 
Moreover, counsel claimed that the petitioner worked on . ects for numerous high profile 
individuals and celebrities" such In 
support of counsel's claims, he submitted several photographs claiming that they represented the 
works of the petitioner. We are not persuaded that the submission of photographs demonstrates 
the work of the petitioner without the submission of primary evidence. Notwithstanding, we are 
further not persuaded that simply restoring the homes of "high profile individuals and 
celebrities" demonstrates that the petitioner's work has been of major significance to the field. 
Regarding item 1, the document reflects some brownfield success stories in Miami. While the 
document highlighted some brownfield projects in the _ area, the petitioner failed to 
identify if any of the success projects were completed by the petitioner, so as to establish original 
contributions made by the petitioner. Regardless, the document fails to indicate that the 
petitioner's work has been of major significance to the field and not restricted to the Miami area. 
Regarding item 2, Representativ~stated: 
[The petitioner], through his projects such has made significant 
and important original contribution to urban Being the first to 
successfully emerge from navigating the US Environmental Protection Agency's 
[U.S. EPA] brownfield program in Florida and with his revitalization and 
rehabilitation of other projects recognized as toxic sites by the EPA and urban 
blight locations, [the petitioner] has created the footprint for other inexperienced 
parties to begin to rehabilitate and revitalize such areas. He is a (successful) 
example to all others who would attempt to accomplish what he, with his 
extraordinary abilities, was the first to do in Florida. 
Although indicated that the petitioner was the first person to 
successfully navigate the U.S. EPA's brownfield program in Florida, he failed to demonstrate 
how this achievement is of major to the field as a whole and not limited to the State 
of Florida. Furthermore, while that the petitioner "created the 
footprint for other to to " he failed to identify any parties 
or individuals who have rehabilitated or revitalized brownfield areas based on the petitioner's 
contributions. 
Regarding item 3,_tated: 
Prior to [the petitioner's] projects in Miami, no other developer had been able to 
engage in a significant level of It is through [the 
petitioner] creating and providing a blueprint through his original and maj or work 
-Page 13 
III Miami that others have followed him, to achieve 
carmhle of achieving. He is 
as the first to successfully emerge from 
program This is a major original contribution by [the 
petitioner] to the field, and one that has been studied and emulated subsequently. 
Similar to the letter from 
petitioner's successful completion in Florida is an 
Ull!;lll'" contribution of major significance to the field of urban development. In other words, 
to establish that the petitioner's accomplishment has impacted or influenced the 
field as a whole and not limited to the projects in Miami and Florida. Likewise, 
indicated that the petitioner provided a blueprint "that others have followed him, 
to identify the blueprint and the others who have followed the petitioner's work. 
rp\11P'W of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner also submitted letters from 
of Miami; of Miami; 
for his work in renovating 
_stated: 
All of the letters highly praise the petitioner 
in the southern Florida area. For example, 
IThe petitioner's] _ project was conducted in tandem with 
vello",m"nt program, which focused on cleanup of brownfield real estate. The 
is one of the true successes in the inner city area of downtown 
Miami. The building had been abandoned to drug dealers and other criminals. 
[The petitioner] has converted the property into a chic venue and is today used as 
the major downtown Miami venue by _ the largest art show in the world. 
The Studios exemplifies the benefits 
brought about by [the petitioner's] in Miami. 
[The petitioner], with his partner and own money, has purchased 
distressed properties in areas where it has been difficult to obtain financing. 
Again, we acknowledge that the petitioner has made original contributions to Miami and the 
surrounding areas in revitalizing and regenerating distressed neighborhoods and properties as 
evidenced by the above referenced letters. However, the petitioner failed to establish, and the 
letters fail to reflect, that his original contributions have been of major significance to his field. 
For example, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his contributions in the Miami area have 
influenced or impacted the field of urban development as a whole. We note here, as indicated in 
counsel's brief, that the submitted a document '"'''',Ill<OU 
from various cities in the 
to have been issued before the 
in February the report bfH~t1 y 
the report also contained numerous project updates 
r Ullil'~llJllUl~, the report was issued in 2000 and appears 
was completed or even substantially started. 
Page 14 
The report described the project in terms of potential benefits such as "[t]o redevelop the area 
would increase the jobs and spur urban in fill" and encountered problems such as "[alnother 
obstacle has been the local and federal back taxes and the accrued liens on the properties." 
The letters submitted on the petitioner's behalf fail to reflect original contributions of major 
significance in the petitioner's field and contain general statements that lack specific details. 
This regulatory criterion not only requires the petitioner to make original contributions, but also 
requires those contributions to be significant. We are not persuaded by vague, solicited letters 
that simply repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how the petitioner's contributions 
have already influenced the field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations 
does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof.s The lack of supporting documentary evidence 
gives the AAO no basis to gauge the significance of the petitioner's present contributions. 
us CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, uscrs 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; uscrs 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. 
We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has 
some meaning. Without additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work has 
been unusually influential, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major 
significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish 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. 
The director found that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. We agree with the 
findings of the director. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
requires "[ e ]vidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation." A review of the record of proceeding 
reflects that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing eligibility for 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Therefore, we agree with the 
decision of the director for this criterion. 
5 Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava. 724 F. Supp. 1103.1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). affd. 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Page 15 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets the plain language of the regulation for this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
In the director's decision, he found that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. Specifically, the director found: 
[Tlhe counsel of record remuneration 
with respect to developers in the However, the 
record contains no documentary evidence of the petitioner's earnings from his 
endeavors, nor that his financial gain from those endeavors place him at the very 
top of his field. Neither has documentation of the earnings of other developers 
been offered for comparison. 
On appeal, counsel argues: 
with respect to developers and in the field of 
is impossible to few 
parties even capable of and willing to engage and 
urban blight revitalization. The parties that are in this field are private individuals 
and companies that do not publish their incomes or profits so as not to make 
competitors aware of their profit margins. Publicly traded real estate companies 
do not engage in this extremely complex field of real estate development, and so 
statistics are not available from public filings as to those publicly held companies. 
In addition to these issues with comparing remuneration, the goal of rehabilitators 
and developers is to receive remuneration upon the resale or refinance of the 
property. They are not paid salaries or compensation in the traditional sense. To 
the contrary, they are incentivized by the US tax system to hold onto their 
properties for lengthy periods of time for capital gains treatment, or to engage in 
1031 like-kind exchanges for other properties allowing them to leverage whatever 
appreciated value their properties may have. Thus, the only way to evaluate 
remuneration would be to examine how much [the petitioner 1 paid for a property, 
and the market value of that property were he to sell it or refinance it and take 
cash out today. 
Counsel failed to submit any documentary evidence supporting his assertions regarding the 
remuneration of developers in general and developers who engage in developments like the 
petitioner. The unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in a motion are not evidence and 
thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 
(1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). 
Page 16 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires "le]vidence that the 
alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation 
to others in the field [emphasis added]." Therefore, we are not persuaded by counsel's argument 
that "the only way to evaluate remuneration would be to examine how much [the petitioner] paid for 
a property, and the market value of that property were he to sell it or refinance it and take cash out 
today." Instead, the petitioner must demonstrate that he has commanded a "significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field." Therefore, counsel failed to establish 
property values equate to remuneration of services. 
Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner submitted a document for the "Second \lUiUl'Cl 
Year 2007 Business Plan" for companies under the management for 
which the petitioner is the manager, reflecting the value of the various properties. We note that the 
petitioner failed to submit independent, objective evidence supporting the value of the properties in 
the business plan. Nevertheless, the documentary evidence fails to establish that the petitioner has 
commanded a significantly high remuneration for services as the petitioner failed to submit any 
documentary evidence comparing his remuneration to others in the field. Merely submitting 
documentation of the value of various properties is insufficient to meet the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) without evidence comparing the petitioner's remuneration 
for services to others in the field so as to establish that the petitioner's remuneration is significantly 
high. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner is eligible for consideration for comparable evidence 
pursuant to the . at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4) because "the particular industry and occupation 
of and urban blight revitalization are not particularly prone to fitting 
within the evidentiary categories of 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3)." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that evidence of sustained national or international 
acclaim "shall" include evidence of a one-time achievement or evidence of at least three of the 
following regulation categories. The ten categories in the regulations are designed to cover 
different areas; not every criterion will apply to every occupation. For example, the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) implicitly applies to the visual arts, and the criterion at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(x) expressly applies to the performing arts. We further acknowledge that the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) provides "fi]f the above standards do not readily apply to the 
[petitioner's] occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the 
[petitioner's] eligibility." It is clear from the use of the word "shall" in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) that 
the rule, not the exception, is that the petitioner must submit evidence to meet at least three of the 
regulatory criteria. Thus, it is the petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory criteria are not 
readily applicable to his occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the 
objective evidence required at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
-Page 17 
The regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as 
there is no indication that eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation as an urban 
developer cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). In fact, as indicated in this decision, counsel mentions evidence that specifically 
addresses six of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). An inability to meet a criterion, 
however, is not necessarily evidence that the criterion does not apply to the petitioner's occupation. 
Moreover, although the petitioner failed to claim this additional criterion, we find that an urban 
developer could be a member of an association requiring outstanding achievements pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Counsel provided no documentation as to why these 
provisions of the regulation would not be appropriate to the profession of an urban developer. 
While the petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation, we considered those letters in 
our discussion of the original contributions criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). Where an alien is simply unable to meet or submit documentary evidence of 
three of these criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not 
allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) 
a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of thefirJ field of endeavor," 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 V.S.C 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1115. The 
petitioner established eligibility for one of the criteria, of which at least three are required under 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case, many of the deficiencies in the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding 
discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In evaluating our final merits determination, we must look at the totality of the evidence to 
conclude the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In this case, the 
petitioner enjoyed some business success in redeveloping distressed properties in the Miami 
area. Furthermore, the petitioner has garnered some personal praise from the local politicians 
and members of the community. However, the accomplishments of the petitioner fall far short of 
establishing that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor" and that he "has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(2), section 
203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 V.S.C § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "faJ 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." The 
Page 18 
petitioner's evidence must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to 
evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), therefore, 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 
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). 
We cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive documentation" of 
the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 
The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act 
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). 
In this case, the petitioner initially claimed eligibility for the awards criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) without submitting any evidence of prizes or awards, let 
alone nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. 
Moreover, the petitioner claimed eligibility for the published material criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iii) based on material that was not about the petitioner 
relating to his work; rather the material was about fashion shows and art festivals. In addition, 
the petitioner failed to submit certified translations for any of the foreign language documents. 
Further, the petitioner failed to comply with the basic regulatory requirements such as providing 
the title, date, and author of the material. 
Also, the petitioner claimed eligibility for the judging criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) without submitting any documentary evidence. Furthermore, the 
petitioner claimed eligibility for the original contributions criterion pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) without demonstrating that his contributions have been of major 
significance to the field. We note that the self-serving letters of recommeNdation praising the 
petitioner cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. Further, 
USC IS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 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. 
Finally, the petitioner claimed eligibility for the significantly high remuneration criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) without offering any evidence comparing 
the petitioner's remuneration for services to others in his field. We also note that counsel made 
various assertions of the petitioner's eligiblity without providing any supporting documentation. 
Page 19 
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. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter 
of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. The unsupported statements of counsel on appeal or in 
a motion are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight. See INS v. 
Phinpathya, 464 U.S. at 189 n.6 (1984). We are not persuaded that such evidence with the 
numerous deficiencies noted equate to "extensive documentation" and is demonstrative of an 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim. The truth is to be determined not by 
the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 citing 
Matter of E-M- 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r. 1989). 
The petitioner failed to submit evidence demonstrating that he "is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field." In addition, the petitioner has not demonstrated his "career 
of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). 
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. The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
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 and 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)(I)(A) of the Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
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 at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review 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, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.