remanded EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdrninistrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: I Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 08 019 53942 DEC 0 4 2009 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. $ 1153(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 fkther 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. $ 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. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
dK~!$'fi lL 
A'' Perry Rhew 
7'; 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 AAO will 
withdraw the director's decision; however, because the petition is not approvable, it is remanded for 
further action and consideration. 
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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in business. The director determined the petitioner had not established that he 
qualifies for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that 
the petition did not include "any supporting evidence." 
On appeal, counsel states: "The Texas Service Center's denial is erroneous because it was based on the 
factually incorrect allegation that no supporting evidence was submitted with the 1-140 petition. The 
self-petitioner did, in fact, submit plenty of supporting evidence with the 1-140 petition." We agree with 
counsel. The record reflects that the petitioner submitted evidence in support of his petition which was 
ignored by the director. While the petitioner has overcome the director's finding regarding the 
absence of supporting evidence, he has not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualifl for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director's decision fails 
to explain the deficiencies in the evidence submitted consistent with the regulations such that the 
petitioner could file a meaningful appeal addressing those deficiencies. For instance, the director's 
decision did not specifically address the deficiencies in the evidence in relation to the relevant 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5@)(3). Thus, we must remand the matter to the director for 
issuance of a new decision that properly addresses the deficiencies in the record. We provide the 
following guidance in complying with this remand order. 
Counsel further argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3) and that he submitted comparable evidence his extraordinary ability pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). 
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 (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. 8 204.5(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. 8 204.5@)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on October 23, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary abilitv as an executive in the automotive industry. At the time of filing, the petitioner 
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 this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
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. 
!j 204.50(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. !j 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in thejeld of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that "W.E.T. Automotive Systems" was among 
additional awards presented to ' 
 ciuding its 
"2005 Innovation Leadership Award." The petitioner's initial submission also included photographs 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
"documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards." [Emphasis added.] It cannot suffice that the petitioner was one member of a large group 
that earned collective recognition. Further, there is no evidence showing that the preceding honors 
equate to "nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor" rather than forms of institutional recognition bestowed by W.E.T. Automotive Systems' 
customers. 
The petitioner submitted a photograph of a trophy indicating that "W.E.T. Automotive Systems 
Ltd." was a "Finalist" in the 2001 Automotive News 1 
Contributions to Excellence) Award competition. The trophy identifies '- 
as the finalist rather than the petitioner. Further, while it is certainly an honor to be 
chosen as a finalist, the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence of the - - 
petitioner's receipt of "nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awkds." In this instance, 
there is no evidence from the competition's organizer showing that or 
the petitioner ultimately received a Moreover, the petitioner has not established that 
his company's selection as one of the multiple finalists is commensurate with his receipt of a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established 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 jield 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 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. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level fkom a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would ualify as 4 major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers. 
The petitioner submitted an August 17, 2004 article in the Automotive section of the Windsor Star 
entitled "Cool seats a hot item." The petitioner also submitted two articles in The Drive entitled 
"From cool ideas to hot products, W.E.T. Automotive designs with comfort in mind" and "When 
Cool is Hot, It's Probably W.E.T.," but the author and date of the articles were not provided as 
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 5 
reauired bv the  lain language of this regulatory criterion. The preceding articles in The Drive and 
statistics) showing that these publications qualify as professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted three letters of support from former coworkers discussing his work for 
While heading [the petitioner] was primarily responsible for the 
exceptional growth of the company and establishing it as a leader in the industry. The - - 
con&butions7 [the petitioner] made our company id to the industry at large were of 
tremendous significance. For example, he led the development of a highly innovative 
ventilated seat system with competitive installation features. This new ventilation system is 
currently the benchmark system throughout the whole automotive industry and has resulted 
in a significant revenue increase for the company. . . . We also developed the North America 
head uarters to become the competency center for 
9 with several new electronic control m 
-as well as our Aftermarket business worldwide. All of these have 
pushed W.E.T. at the forefront of the industry by increasing its revenues by potentially $500 
million, which represents a fivefold increase, and continuously maintaining an exceptional 
20+% profit margin . . . . Not surprisingly, [the petitioner's] key leadership was the principal 
driving force behind our company capturing an unprecedented 60% market share of the 
entire North American market, while facing intense competition from Japanese, South 
Korean, Chinese, and U.S. companies. 
Clearly, [the petitioner] spearheaded intensive new developments of our products, thereby 
crowning as an industry leader and setting the bar in technological innovation. I can 
confirm that only an executive of the highest caliber can accomplish such impressive results. 
More importantly, [the petitioner's] leadership role had a direct influence not only on W.E.T. 
becoming a world leader in its field, but also on the entire automotive components industry 
as a whole. 
Further, [the petitioner] landed rith major seat suppliers. 
PSC strengthened our market position and provided us a significant competitive advantage 
by securing current and future business for - 
Page 6 
In sum, [the petitioner] is one of the leading business executives in the automotive field. He 
has been the driving force behind the 'xpansion to become one 
of the leading automotive components manufacturers in the U.S. He has made significant 
contributions to the automotive industry at large by leading the development of highly 
innovative technologies that have become automotive benchmarks. 
[The petitioner] was chosen as the executive in charge to reorganize 
 newly 
established Hungarian division and improved its operation. [The petitioner] was primarily 
responsible for the Hungarian division achieving 141 % revenue increase during its first year 
of operations. For the second year, he increased its revenues by 42% and reduced defects 
incidence by 52%. [The petitioner's] leadershi resulted in the capture of a new automotive 
cable business, which generated 15% of ds total European sales. 
recognized [the petitioner's] huge potential and rapidly promoted him to 
~roeressivelv more res~onsible executive Dositions with the organization. BY the time he left 
A w 
the company in 2007: he was already sdrving as the - 
During his time at [the petitioner] oversaw an increase in Gross Profit by 37.4% and 
a holding of 60% of the market share in North America. enjoyed an astounding 26% 
profit margin under [the petitioner's] leadership. Indeed, this is quite an accomplishment as 
the industry average is in the single-digits. . . . [The petitioner] is one of the few top 
executives who possess the rare talent to create a reorganize completely a whole company's 
operations, train and motivate its managerial and executive staff, and implement a 
dramatically improved organizational structure that works like a clock. 
[The petitioner] was the 
 rincipal driving engine behind the tremendous growth and 
development of 
- 
ada. Under his skillful leadership, the company's profit and 
revenue situation improve significantly and the new module introduction represented a 
revenue increase potential by five times in excess of $500 million. [The petitioner] was 
primarily responsible for pioneering and introducing the revolutionary ventilated seat 
concept, which is currently widely used throughout the automotive industry worldwide! I 
have been an executive in the automotive field for many years and I can attest that such a 
dramatic growth is very rarely observed in an industry where profit margins are extremely 
low. Indeed, the average profit margin in automotive industry usually does not exceed 10% 
and Ithe petitioner's1 extraordinary business talent secured the W.E.T. a 26% profit margin 
not for iust a single year but over the course of five years in a row! This is more than twice 
in excess of the average automotive component company's profit margins and is a prime 
testament to the fact that [the petitioner] is one of the few business executives who have 
reached the top of their field. 
Page 7 
It should come as no surprise that under [the petitioner's] leadership, the soup 
captured 60% of the North American automotive market, which is the most competitive 
automotive market in the world. This is another business feat that very few business 
executives, not only in the automotive industry but in any industry, could possibly match. In 
sum, maintaining gross profit margins of 26% for five years in a row when the industry on 
average was struggling with single digit profit margins, increasing revenues, spearheading 
the introduction of a revolutionary seat heating system that is a benchmark for today's 
automotive industry, and capturing 60% of the North American automotive components 
market - these are the business feats that firmly position [the petitioner] at the top of the 
field. I have not doubt in saying that he is one of the top automotive executives who has 
made substantial contributions to the field and has set standards that very few can march. 
Talent and success for a particular company, however, are not necessarily indicative of original 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The record lacks evidence showing 
that the petitioner has made original contributions that have significantly influenced or impacted the 
automotive industrv. For exarn~le. there is no evidence identifvine the ~etitioner as the original < w - 
1entilated seat svstem concept. iurther. with regard to the inventor of , A V 
market share, sales revenue, and profit margin improvements attribut4 to the petitioner, the record 
lacks contemporaneous financial reports or other indenendent data for 1 
Canadian and Hungarian locations to corroborate I 
regarding the petitioner's business accomplishments. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). We acknowledge that the petitioner has 
helped contribute to the success of his locations' business operations, but there is no evidence 
demonstrating that his work constitutes original business-related contributions of major significance 
in the field. Regarding the petitioner's coworkers' comments about his leading role with W.E.T. 
Automotive Systems, this information will be addressed under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204S(h)(3)(viii). 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 petitioner has earned the admiration of 
his former coworkers fiom - there is no evidence demonstrating that his 
specific work has significantly impacted the automotive industry beyond his former employer in a 
manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. F& example, the recoid does not 
indicate the extent to which his work has impacted others in his field nationally or internationally, 
nor does it show that the automotive industry has significantly changed as a result of his original 
work. 
In this case, the letters of support submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
These letters, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary 
ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
Page 8 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comrnr. 1988). 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 former 
coworkers is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. 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 
that one would expect of an executive in the automotive industry who has sustained national or 
international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been 
unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of 
original contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude 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 record adequately demonstrates that as a distinguished reputation 
and that the 
 performed in a leading role for the company as President and Chief Executive 
Oficer. Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
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 December 1,2006 letter from his employer, tng: 
Effective January 1,2007 your annual income will be increased as follows: 
1. Fixed annual salary (12 equal monthly installments of US$19,600,-) 
 US$235,200,- 
2. Target bonus (for 100% goal achievement) US$ 100,800,- 
3. Annual target income (for 100% achievement of goals) US$336,000,- 
The record, however, does not include evidence (such as payroll records or income tax returns) 
showing the petitioner's actual earnings for any specific period of time. As previously discussed, 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 158, 165. 
The petitioner also submitted "Online Wage Library - FLC [Foreign Labor Certification] Wage 
Search Results" showing the median wages of Chief Executives in the Tennessee, Michigan, and New 
York regions. For example, the Level 4 Wage (Illy competent) for Chief Executives in the New York 
area was $200,907 per year. The petitioner, however, must submit evidence showing that his salary 
places him among that small percentage at the very top of the field rather than simply in the top half 
on a regional basis. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). Median regional wage statistics do not meet this 
requirement. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that his salary is significantly high in 
relation to other executives in the field. 
Page 9 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we find that the petitioner meets only one regulatory criterion, three of which are 
required to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 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. 8 C.F.R. $204.5@)(2). 
On appeal, counsel argues that W.E.T. Automotive Systems' selection as a finalist for a PACE 
Award, the company's supplier awards from Johnson Controls, and the articles about the company in 
The Drive and the Windsor Star should be considered as comparable evidence pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(4). This evidence has already been addressed under the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. $$204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iii). Further, there is no evidence showing that the 
documentation counsel requests re-evaluation of as comparable evidence constitutes the petitioner's 
individual achievements and recognition commensurate with sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of his field. Nevertheless, the regulatory language at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.50(4) 
precludes the consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that 
eligibility for visa preference in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria 
specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5@)(3). We cannot ignore that counsel has specifically 
argued that the petitioner meets the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $8 204.5@)(3)(v), (viii), and (ix). 
Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of the regulatory criteria, the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5@)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Accordingly, as the petition is not approvable, we must remand the matter to the director for issuance 
of a new decision that properly addresses the preceding deficiencies in the petitioner's evidence for 
each of the applicable regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). The director may also address any 
further deficiencies found in the petitioner's evidence not included in the AAO's discussion of the 
regulatory criteria. 
As always, the burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 
291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. 
ORDER: The director's decision is withdrawn. Because the petition is not approvable, the 
petition is remanded to the director for issuance of a new, detailed decision which, if 
adverse to the petitioner, is to be certified to the AAO for review.