dismissed EB-1A Case: Yoga, Ayurveda And Naturopathy

U.S. Departmcrtt of Hon~cland Sccuril) 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OSfice ofAdrnrn~strarrve Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: - 
SRC 08 098 54445 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(I)(i). 
,,ubudha 
f' Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that the beneficiary meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. 
This petition, filed on February 1, 2008 seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a professor in yoga, ayurveda and naturopathy. 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for the 
beneficiary for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, 
the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent 
with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
We note that although the record contains evidence of the beneficiary's prior approval as an 0-1 non- 
immigrant, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant 
petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See e.g. Q Data 
Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. 
Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. ,S'ava, 724 F. Supp. 1 103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). 
Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant 
petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. 
INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 
WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an 
extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See e.g. Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm. 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between 
a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the 
nonimmigrant petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 
282785 (E.D. La.), affd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 5 1 (2001). 
As aforementioned, each petition must be adjudicated on its own merits under the statutory provisions 
and regulations which apply. Thus, the beneficiary's eligibility will be evaluated under the regulatory 
criteria relating to the immigrant classification as claimed by the petitioner. With regard to these 
regulatory criteria, counsel for the petitioner specifically noted in his appeal brief that: 
Page 4 
"the ten criteria are [do] not readily apply to as the fields of yoga, 
ayurveda and naturopathy are not widely known in the United States. These 
disciplines are widely known in India, and it is readily apparent that is 
extremely acclaimed in India based on his outstanding expertise in these fields." 
Counsel's contention is not persuasive and his claims are unsupported by documentary evidence. 
Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 
n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). While counsel 
attempts to limit the beneficiary's field to "yoga, ayurveda and naturopathy, we note that the 
occupation claimed on the Form 1-140 is "professor and director." As counsel has provided no 
persuasive argument as to why the criteria are not applicable to beneficiary's stated occupation, we 
will review his eligibility as it pertains to the relevant regulatory criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 
To fulfill this criterion, the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's credentials including his academic 
diplomas and his attendance at various trainings. The petitioner also provided certificates of 
appreciation such as one for the beneficiary's services as a yoga instructor, which was dated 
December 2, 1986, and one for his participation as a speaker at a conference called "How to Solve 
Chronic Diseases" on December 9-10,2000. The petitioner also submitted a schedule indicating that 
the beneficiarv was a s~eaker at another conference in Se~tember of 1994. ''Arogva Health Mela." 
An appointmeit letter, iated March 20, 1997, from thwhich 
offered the beneficiary the post of "Yoga Teacher-cum-Performer" at the - 
in Jakarta was provided as well. Additional evidence confirming the beneficiary's 
participation at various conferences was also submitted. 
In his decision, the director found that the petitioner did not fulfill this criterion because there was no 
evidence presented "other than academic and conference participation certificates." Additionally, 
the director held that "awards based on educational achievement or other traits deemed praiseworthy 
by the awarding organization do not constitute nationally or internationally recognized 'awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor."' On appeal, no new evidence was provided for this criterion. 
We concur with the director's finding that there is no evidence showing that the beneficiary has 
received any nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence in his field. 
The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that 
the beneficiary's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is 
the petitioner's burden to establish every element of this criterion. The record lacks general 
information indicating that the beneficiary received any awards or prizes. In addition, even if we 
were to consider the educational achievements and certificates of appreciation as awards or prizes, 
such evidence was not supported with any documentation illustrating the overall stature and prestige 
Page 5 
associated with receiving the awards or some other evidence consistent with national or international 
acclaim at the very top of the field. Moreover, recognition for participation andlor speaking at 
conferences does not constitute prizes or awards that are nationally or internationally recognized. 
Further, the evidence provided did not establish that the beneficiary's accomplishments were 
"indicative of national or international acclaim." 
Moreover, most of the evidence submitted for this criterion was dated over a decade prior to the 
filing of this application. As such, the sustained acclaim required under 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 9 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3) by this highly restrictive classification 
cannot be demonstrated. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien S membership in associations in the field for which 
classiJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criteria, the petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for the 
beneficiary's 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, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion 
as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a 
given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner provided a certificate indicating that the beneficiary had a life membership in- 
- which was dated October 13, 2000. The petitioner also submitted 
minutes from two meetings of the which indicated that the 
beneficiary was a member in attendance at these meetings in 2006. A biography of the beneficiary 
written in a PIYAS newsletter was also included as evidence, which described the beneficiary as a 
chief mentor for the organization. 
In his decision, the director found that the petitioner did not meet this criterion because he failed to 
establish the beneficiary's membership in any of these organizations. On appeal, no new evidence 
regarding this criterion was submitted. We agree that the petitioner failed to prove the beneficiary 
fulfilled this criterion, finding that the record lacks evidence (such as membership bylaws or official 
admission requirements) showing that any of the groups require outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the beneficiary's field or an 
allied one. None of the evidence provided states the requirements of membership or states what types 
of outstanding achievements are necessary for membership in these organizations. Moreover, no 
evidence has been submitted which demonstrated that membership in these organizations was judged 
by recognized national or international experts in the field. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Page 6 
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 classiJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualifl as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication 
or broadcast, or from a publication printed in a language that the vast majority of the country's 
population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualifj as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike 
small local community papers.' 
The petitioner provided two biographies of the beneficiary, both published by the petitioner, = 
on its website and published on , However, 
neither of these biographies lists an author. The petitioner also submitted an article entitled, "Top 
investigative agency personnel learning yoga for mental relief," dated September 17, without a year 
-- - 
and published by-'his article quoted the beneficiary as statingVthat 
yopa helm relieve stress. In addition. the ~etitioner ~rovided citations to an article the beneficiary 
not clear. An article published in a newsletter called Tattva entitled, "Pancha is five in Samskritam, 
Amritam is nectar," was also submitted and only briefly quoted the beneficiary. 
The director, in his decision, found that the petitioner failed to satisfy this criterion for several 
reasons. First, this criterion specifically requires the evidence to include a title, date and author. The 
biographies provided by the petitioner failed to include an author. Likewise, the article submitted 
entitled "Top investigative agency personnel learning yoga for mental relief' contained an 
incomplete date. Additionally, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the 
published material be "about the alien." However, the following articles: "Top investigative agency 
personnel learning yoga for mental relief," ' is five in Samskritam, 
Amritam is nectar," and "Philosophy of yoga for were not written primarily about 
the beneficiary. If mentioned at all, the articles only briefly quoted him. Moreover, two of the 
articles are mainly just citations to the beneficiary. Citations do not qualify as published materials 
about an alien. 
The record also lacks evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that any of the preceding 
articles submitted by the petitioner were printed in professional or major trade publications or some 
I 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 7 
other form of major media. Many of the articles appear in newsletters or regional papers rather than 
nationally or internationally circulated publications. Regional coverage or coverage in a publication 
read by only a small ethnic segment of a country's total population is not evidence of national or 
international acclaim. In his decision, the director indicated this deficiency in the evidence provided. 
Nonetheless, no further evidence on appeal was submitted to support that any of these articles were 
published in a professional or major trade publication or any other major media. 
On appeal, the petitioner provided two additional articles published in both written by the 
beneficiary. One article was entitled, - its origins and journey to America," dated May 16- 
22, 2008 and the other article was called, "Philosophy of yoga for the modern age," dated Mary 23, 
2008. The first article is about the beneficiary and his life, while the second article is about yoga 
generally. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published 
material be "about" the petitioner relating to her work. The regulations contain a separate criterion for 
articles written by the petitioner and as such, these additional articles will be discussed under that 
criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 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 alliedJield of specification for which classijication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability 
must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
beneficiary's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight 
given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 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. 5 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a national competition for 
yoga professionals is of far greater probative value than judging a local competition for youth or 
novices. 
The petitioner provided a letter, dated February 4, 1991, from the 
which indicated that the beneficiary would be acting as a judge in a yoga competition on May 
2, 1991. No information regarding the competition or evidence that he actually did act as a judge 
was provided. A letter, dated January 3 1, 1986, from - was also submitted 
and indicated that the beneficiary would be acting as a judge for a yoga competition for them 
on February 4, 1986. The petitioner submitted another letter, dated November 
18, 1992, from the which indicated that the beneficiary would be 
judging a competition on November 19, 1992 at the government girls senior secondary school in 
New Delhi. 
Page 8 
The director's decision held that the petitioner failed to satisfy this requirement. The director found 
that the record includes only proof that the beneficiary judged some low level yoga competitions, 
which is insufficient to fulfill this criterion. We concur with this determination. Of the three 
competitions the beneficiary was requested to act as judge, two appear to be regional youth 
competitions, and not national competitions. No details regarding the competition judged by the 
beneficiary on May 2, 1991 were provided. Additionally, the evidence provided failed to 
demonstrate the actual competitive event judged by the petitioner or the nature of the competitions. 
Moreover, the record lacks evidence establishing the level of prestige associated with judging the 
competitions in the record, the requirements necessary to become a judge in those competitions, and 
the names of the competitors he evaluated and/or their levels of expertise or other evidence of his 
judging that is indicative of this highly restrictive classification. 
Lastly, the competitions purportedly judged by the beneficiary all occurred in the late 1980's and 
early 1990's, which is well over a decade prior to the filing of this application. As such, the 
sustained acclaim required under 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) by this highly restrictive classification cannot be demonstrated. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzj?cance in the field. 
The petitioner provided a list of the courses the beneficiary teaches, his resume and biography. The 
petitioner also submitted a list of the beneficiary's written works. In addition, the petitioner 
provided invitations to be and/or proof of participation as a speaker at various conferences. 
However, no information regarding the conferences was provided. On appeal, the petitioner 
submitted several letters of recommendation. 
In his decision, the director found that the petitioner failed to meet this criterion. Specifically, he 
explained that the beneficiary's published articles reflect some useful contribution to "the general 
pool of knowledge," but that they do not constitute a major contribution to his field. We agree that 
the publications submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to fulfill this category. Here it should 
be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because 
separate criteria exist for articles about the beneficiary and articles published by the benefiary, 
USCIS clearly does not view these criteria as being interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet 
one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an alien 
meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. See also Kuzarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (9'" Cir. 
2009). (publications and presentations are insufficient absent evidence that they constitute contributions 
of major significance). 
Page 9 
Likewise, with regard to the beneficiary's participation at conferences, the petitioner failed to 
provide evidence for any of these engagements regarding the type of audience who attended these 
presentations, the number of attendees, or the selection criteria for the presenters. As such, the 
evidence does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's participation in these conferences conveyed 
him national or international acclaim or that his participation in such events made a contribution of 
major significance to his field. 
The letters of recommendation discuss the beneficiary's extensive knowledge in yoga, ayurveda, and 
naturopathy, his training, and examples of the work he has performed. However, they fail to 
demonstrate that he has made original contributions of major significance in his field. The letters 
include no substantive discussion as to which of the beneficiary's specific achievements rise to the 
level of original contributions of major significance in the field. According to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major 
significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, 
that it has some meaning. While the beneficiary's talent is admired by those offering letters of 
support, there is no evidence demonstrating that his work has had major significance in the field. 
For example, the record does not indicate the extent of the beneficiary's influence on others in his 
field nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result of 
his work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation and other evidence submitted by the petitioner are not 
sufficient to meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S authorship of scholarly articles in the jield, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted a chronology of the beneficiary's professional and academic pursuits, as 
well as a list of his research papers. Prior to filing, most of his "publications" appear to be written in 
conjunction with conferences and written in the early 1990s. The beneficiary's most current work 
on the list appears to be from 1997. The list of the beneficiary's works fails to consistently state the 
publisher. In addition, the petitioner provided a web printout indicating that the beneficiary authored 
a book entitled published by - 
on an unknown date. One page of a report the beneficiary co-authored entitled - - was also 
submitted. Such report also contained no date and no information regarding where it was uublished. 
The director found that the petitioner failed to fulfill this criterion. Among several issues the 
director had with the evidence submitted for this criteria, he found that the evidence did "not indicate 
that the petitioner's published articles have garnered national or international attention, for example 
by being widely cited by independent researchers." We concur with the director's decision with 
respect to this criterion. While we acknowledge that we must avoid requiring acclaim within a given 
Page 10 
criterion, it is not a circular approach to require some evidence of the community's reaction to the 
petitioner's published articles in a field where publication is expected of those merely completing 
training in the field. Kuzarian at 1030. 
In addition to failing to sufficiently demonstrate that the beneficiary's articles received national or 
international attention consistent with this highly restrictive classification, the petitioner also failed 
to submit evidence which demonstrates that any of the articles were published in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. The mere fact that the beneficiary's articles were 
published is not enough to satisfy this criterion. Moreover, in some cases as indicated above, it is 
not even clear where and if the beneficiary's works were published and by whom. 
On appeal, the petitioner provided two additional articles dated May 16-22,2008 and May 23,2008, 
respectively. However, since these articles were published after the date the petition was filed, they 
will not be considered in this proceeding. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 
C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Kutigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). A 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 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 petitioner submitted a 
m 
newsletter, in which the beneficiary is described as the chief 
mentor, teacher and spiritua counselor for 
 The newsletter discusses the beneficiary's 
experiences and the courses that he teaches. However the newsletter does not specifically indicate 
how the beneficiary has performed a leading or critical role for the organization. 
In order to establish that the beneficiary performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or 
establishment with a distinguished reputation, he must establish the nature of the beneficiary's role 
within the organization or kstablishment and its reputation. The position should also be of such 
significance that the alien's selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent 
with national or international acclaim. The petitioner failed to show that the beneficiary's position 
- - 
with PIYAS orwith am commensurate with a leading or 
critical role. Without further supporting documentation, the petitioner has not sufficiently 
established that the beneficiary performed a leading or critical role based merely on the titles 
claimed. 
The evidence further lacks proof that 
h 
has a "distinguished reputation." For example, 
no evidence was included regarding t e organrzatrons' background, standing in the community or 
world, or any other aspect of its reputations. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Page I I 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other .signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a bank statement of the petitioner's savings, which in no way relates to the 
beneficiary's salary. In addition, the petitioner's representative described the beneficiary's salary as 
'.not extremely high." A letter fromdated June 11, 2008, explained that 
the beneficiary "belonged to the tradition where service comes first and remuneration comes last." 
also mentions the beneficiary's monetary compensation. In his 
letter, 
 beneficiary was offered "Rs 40,000 per month for his services 
which he accepted." indicated 
that the beneficiary's salary in Jakarta, Indonesia increased from "Rs 12,000 p.m. to Rs 1,000,000 
per month" during his four year assignment. 
The petitioner failed to provide any evidence from a reliable, independent source, such as tax returns 
or income statements. Moreover, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires the 
petitioner to submit evidence that the beneficiary has commanded a high salary "in relation to others 
in the field." However, the petitioner did not provide any evidence regarding the beneficiary's 
colleagues in the same field. Therefore, the petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that his 
compensation was significantly high in relation to others in his field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the reference letters submitted on the petitioner's behalf are 
comparable evidence of the beneficiary's extraordinary ability as an expert in yoga, ayurveda and 
naturopathy. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable 
evidence" only if the ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The 
regulatory language precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no 
evidence that eligibility for visa preference in the beneficiary's occupation cannot be established by 
the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable 
to meet three of the regulatory criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(4) 
does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Further, there is no evidence showing that the documentation the petitioner requests re-evaluation of 
as comparable evidence constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of his field. While reference letters can provide useful 
information about an alien's qualifications or help in assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters 
are not a substitute for objective evidence of the alien's achievements and recognition as required by the 
statute and regulations. The nonexistence of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, the classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of 
sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 
1 153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations 
implementing the statute provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens 
of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more 
extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 
Page 12 
5, 1991). Primary evidence of achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than the 
opinions of one's professional acquaintances. 
In this case, 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 regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3). 
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 a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the 
petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.