remanded EB-1A Case: Forestry

identifying &W d6Hd fe 
pweot clear'rpl 
invasion of perSaul privpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 1 6 10117 
SRC 06 039 52819 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
- 
5~obert P. Wiemann, 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 on appeal. The director's decision will be 
withdrawn, and the petition will be remanded for further action and consideration.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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established that he would continue work in his field of expertise in the 
United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that he intends to continue work in the United States in his area of expertise "as a 
Forestry Specialist . . . with extensive experience in the field of Environmental Management." 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) states: 
No offer of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States nor a labor 
certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must be accompanied by clear 
evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such 
evidence may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments 
such as contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to 
continue his or her work in the United States. 
This petition, filed on November 18, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien of extraordinary ability as a 
forestry specialist. The initial documentation accompanying the petition included no evidence pertaining to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). On December 20, 2005, the director issued a notice of intent to deny 
informing the petitioner of this deficiency. The director's notice also stated: 
Page 3 
The facts reveal that 
The self-petitioner reports current occupation is "none - a retired employee." 
The self-petitioner reports the address where he or she will perform the work is "not 
determined yet." 
The petitioner's respons 
 tent to deny included a January 12,2006 letter and a January 
20, 2006 pay stub fro 
 in Jacksonville, Florida indicating that the petitioner was a 
The petitioner also submitted a January 10, 2006 letter fi-om 
the firm's interest in hiring the petitioner. We find that the preceding 
petitioner intends to continue work in his area of expertise in the 
United States. While we agree with the director that the record initially lacked clear evidence indicating that the 
petitioner intended to continue forestry work in the United States, we find that the evidence submitted in 
response to the notice of intent to deny is adequate to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(5). Thus, the 
petitioner has overcome the stated grounds for denial and established eligibility pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Beyond the decision of the director, section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires an individual seeking 
extraordinary ability classification to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that his 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In this case, the evidence 
submitted by the petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has earned the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualifi for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress 
intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. 
See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 1991). As used in section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 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. 3 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for 
supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria 
will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has earned 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
As required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3), 
the petitioner must demonstrate that his national or international acclaim has been sustained. The record 
reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since December 11, 2003. Given the length 
of time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date (more than 23 
months), it is reasonable to expect him to have earned national acclaim in the United States during that time. 
The petitioner has had ample time to establish a reputation as a forestry specialist in this country. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 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, international 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. Review of the record indicates that the petitioner claims eligbility based on an award, an 
association membership, judging the work of others, authorship of a scholarly article, and commanding a high 
salary pursuant to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iv), (vi), and (ix). The director's 
decision failed to specifically address these criteria and explain how the evidence submitted for each criterion 
was not adequate to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim. 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(i) calls for documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. We find that the petitioner's 1999 
"Commendation Award" from his immediate employer at that time, the National Power Corporation, Quezon 
City, Philippines, reflects institutional recognition rather than national or international recognition. Therefore, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) calls for 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. The petitioner submitted his Certificate 
of Membership for the Society of Filipino Foresters. The record, however, includes no evidence of the 
membership bylaws or the official admission requirements for this society showing that it requires 
outstanding achievement for admission to membership or that prospective members are evaluated by national 
or international experts in consideration of their admission to membership. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) calls for 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. The 
petitioner submitted an October 1, 2005 letter from 
 Vice President, National Power 
Corporation, stating that the petitioner served as "one of the panel of judges in the ' 1998 Regonal Search For The 
Best Power Plant and Transmission Line Facility in the Northern Luzon Region."' The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 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 petitioner'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. 
$ 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. $ 204.5(h)(2). We do not find that the petitioner's participation as a 
judge for a "regional" competition organized by his immediate employer in 1998 is indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) calls for evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. The petitioner submitted evidence that he prepared 
an "Environmental Exchange Program Participant Report" summarizing his training program at the University of 
California, Berkeley in 2000. We do not find that this participant report qualifies as a scholarly article authored 
by the petitioner. Further, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's report was published in "professional 
Page 5 
or major trade publications or other major media." Therefore, the petitioner has not established that he meets 
this criterion. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ix) calls for evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly 
high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. The petitioner submitted a certification from the 
National Power Corporation specifying his annual income for 2002. The petitioner, however, offers no basis for 
comparison showing that his compensation was significantly high in relation to others in his field. There is no 
evidence that the petitioner earns a level of compensation placing him among the highest paid forestry specialists 
at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
In conclusion, while the petitioner has overcome the stated grounds for denial and satisfied the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(5), we find that the evidence of record fails to demonstrate that he meets at least three of 
the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Further, the record does not establish that whatever acclaim 
the petitioner had in the Philippines has been sustained since his entry into the United States in 2003. 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 the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
In light of the above, this matter is remanded to the director for the purpose of issuing a new decision in order 
for the director to address the petitioner's evidence as it relates to the pertinent regulatory criteria set forth at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The director's new decision shall set forth the specific deficiencies in the evidence 
outlined above and any further deficiencies as noted by the director. As always, the burden of proof in visa 
petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 136 1. 
ORDER: 
 The director's decision is withdrawn. 
 The petition is remanded for fwther action and 
consideration consistent with the above discussion and entry of a new decision which, if adverse 
to the petitioner, is to be certified to the Administrative Appeals Office for review.