remanded EB-1A Case: Security Consultant

p~LIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: LIN 06 262 51618 
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 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. 
Appeals Office 
LIN 06 262 51618 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 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 "alien of extraordinary ability," pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A). The director determined the petitioner had 
not established that he qualifies for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petition "should be remanded because the . . . Director did not specify how the 
evidence submitted by [the petitioner] was deficient." Counsel further states: 
The . . . Director's Request for Evidence . . . was vague and ambiguous because the RFE merely restated 
all of the various criteria for demonstrating sustained national or intemational acclaim but did not specify 
which criteria . . . [the petitioner] failed to establish. Then, [the director] merely followed up the vague 
and ambiguous RFE with a vague and ambiguous [dlecision in which [the director] denied the . . . 
[petition] but, again, did not specify which criteria [the petitioner] had failed to establish and how he had 
failed to establish them in order to show the requisite sustained national or intemational acclaim. 
For the reasons discussed below, we find that the director's request for evidence was properly issued in 
accordance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8). However, we agree with counsel that 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. The director's decision identifies some of 
the documentation submitted by the petitioner, but it does not specifically address the deficiencies in his evidence 
in relation to the relevant regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(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. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall fmt 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 intemational 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 
LIN06 262 51618 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in ths 
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 he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Ths petition, filed on September 12,2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
a security consultant. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a personal security officer for - 
and her family, and as Head of Security for CDA Productions (Las Vegas) Inc.'s show "A New Day" 
featuring -ion at the Colosseum at Caesars Palace in Nevada. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(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). Baning 
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. The criteria 
follow. 
* 
(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, whch 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 in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media; 
LIN06 262 51618 
Page 4 
. 
 (vii) Evidence of the &splay of the alien's work in the field at artistic exlubitions or showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(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 performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In an August 8, 2006 letter accompanying the petition, counsel states: "The [CIS] regulations . . . at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.501) require that the alien present evidence of at least 3 of the 6 criteria of extraordinary ability. In this 
case, [the petitioner] meets 4 of the 6 criteria set forth in the regulations . . . ." Counsel's statement regarding "the 
6 criteria set forth in regulations" is incorrect. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) outlines ten criteria, not 
six as indicated by counsel. 
The August 8, 2006 letter fi-om counsel includes arguments addressing the regulatory criteria at 8C.F.R. 
$9 204.5(h)(3)(v), (viii), and (ix). Although counsel's letter claims that the petitioner meets four of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner has not specifically identified the fourth regulatory criterion that 
he claims to satisfy. On page 4 of the letter, under item 4, counsel states that the petitioner "has performed in 
numerous countries throughout the world" and then discusses evidence demonstrating his oversight of Celine 
Dion's security operations, but ths discussion does not appear relevant to any of the remaining criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3).' None of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) call for evidence that "the alien has 
performed in numerous countries throughout the world." 
On January 17, 2007, the director issued a request for evidence citing a lack of evidence that the petitioner has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized as extraorhary by 
others in the field. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
The WE then went on to restate the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5@)(3)(i) through (x) and the 
"comparable evidence" provision at 8 C .F.R. $ 204.5(h)(4). 
The WE provided no other guidance as to why the documentation already submitted did not meet the 
aforementioned criteria and what Mher documentation the . . . Director believed was necessary to meet 
the criteria in question. 
The petitioner's performance of security oversight duties foas already discussed by counsel on page 3 
of the August 8,2006 letter as evidence relating to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
LIN 06 262 51618 
Page 5 
Pursuant to the regulation then in effect at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8) (2006); in instances where initial evidence or 
eligibility information is missing or CIS finds that the evidence submitted either does not fully establish eligibility 
for the requested benefit or raises underlying questions regarding eligibility, CIS shall request the missing initial 
evidence. In thls instance, as counsel had incorrectly asserted in the August 8, 2006 letter that there were six 
regulatory criteria rather than ten, the director acted properly in restating the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Further, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(8) does not require the director to provide 
"guidance as to why the documentation already submitted did not meet the aforementioned criteria7' or 
specifically identify "what further documentation . . . was necessary to meet the criteria in question." 
The remaining issue to be determined is whether the director's notice of denial addressed the deficiencies in the 
evidence submitted such that the petitioner could file a meaningful appeal addressing those deficiencies. On 
April 1 1,2007, the director issued a decision stating, in pertinent part: 
According to the record, the petitioner's area of expertise is personal security (bodyguard) for - 
-he documents submitted as initial evidence include: 
Evidence of contractual relationship as bodyguard, including copy of Agreement between petitioner 
and CDA Productions (Las Vegas) which outlines the duties and responsibilities of the alien 
petitioner. 
Reference letters written by peers and colleagues. The letters, which all support petition approval, 
provide information and opinions about the alien's contributions to his employers and the alien's 
professional qualifications. 
The record includes photos of the petitioner while performing his security duties in various prominent 
venues and with his world famous employer and her family. The record also includes information on 
the importance of security for world famous personalities and examples of tragic consequences that 
can happen if security is inadequate. 
The Service issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) on January 17, 2007. In a response received on 
April 3, 2007, the petitioner submitted a letter from the attorney of record, and two letters attesting to 
the expertise of the alien petitioner. 
It is readily apparent that the petitioner is a successll security consultant. For example, the record 
shows the alien has successfully enforced security at various prominent venues while in the employ of 
CDA Productions, and at the time of filing the Form 1-140 held such position. This employment 
record is a favorable consideration, but in itself does not establish eligibility. In Matter of Price, 20 
I&N Dec. 953, 955 (Assoc. Comm. Exams 1994), the Service explained that performance at the 
major league level was a fact that may help to establish that an athlete meets several of the listed 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 103.2@)(8) was later revised and no longer requires CIS to issue an RFE when the 
petitioner's submission is insufficient. On April 17, 2007, CIS promulgated a rule related to the issuance of requests for 
evidence and NOIDs. 72 Fed. Reg. 19100 (Apr. 17,2007). The rule became effective on June 18,2007, after the filing 
and adjudication of this petition. 
LIN 06 262 51618 
Page 6 
criteria, but "[a] blanket rule for all major league athletes would contravene Congress' intent to 
reserve this category to 'that small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their 
field of endeavor." That reasoning applies to individuals employed in prominent capacities in other 
fields of endeavor. 
The record in ths case lacks evidence of receipt of a major, international award or, in the alternative, 
of sustained national or international acclaim at least three of the regulatory criteria. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). It is noted, however, that the petitioner has met the criteria for performing a lead or 
critical role for CDA productions and so has met one of the criteria. The Service acknowledges 
opinions presented in letters written expressly for this proceeding, but these do not overcome the lack 
of documentary evidence of sustained acclaim. In Matter of Chawathe (USCIS Adopted Decision, 
January 11, 2006), the Service reaffirmed that 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) requires "specific objective 
evidence be submitted to demonstrate eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability." 
As stated in Matter of Price, 20 I&N at 955, it was "Congress' intent to reserve this category to 'that 
small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor."' Based on 
the evidence of record, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner, through evidence of sustained 
national or international acclaim, is recognized as one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). 
The burden of proof in these proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S .C. $ 1 36 1. In view of the above, the petition is denied. 
The director's decision listed all ten of the regulatory criteria, and stated that the petitioner had satisfied the 
leading or critical role criterion at $ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The director acknowledged the petitioner's submission 
of reference letters written by peers and colleagues that discuss his "contributions," but did not specify the 
deficiencies in this evidence in the context of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(v). Rather, the director's 
decision noted that the letters "all support petition approval." The director also acknowledged the petitioner's 
submission of a contractual agreement between the petitioner and CDA Productions (Las Vegas), Inc., but did 
not address his $90,170.00 salary as it relates to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(ix).) Thus, the 
director's decision failed to adequately consider the evidence submitted for the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$6 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (ix) and discuss why that evidence was deficient. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
[The petitioner] is put in the position of proceeding with an appeal without knowing why the . . . Director 
denied his [petition]. This is clearly a violation of fundamental fairness and places [the petitioner] in a 
disadvantageous position. 
The petitioner submitted a January 31, 2006 letter from CDA Productions, Inc. stating that the petitioner "has an 
employment contract for a period of three (3) years and receives an annual salary of ninety thousand one hundred 
seventy dollars ($90,170.00) together with medical benefits." 
LIN 06 262 51618 
Page 7 
The record clearly establishes that [the petitioner] meets three of the necessary criteria set forth at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Specifically, [the petitioner] satisfies the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F .R 5 [$I 204.5(h)(3)(v), (viii) and 
(ix) . 
We note the following deficiencies in the petitioner's evidence as it relates to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), (viii), and (ix). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjicance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation from his personal and professional contacts. We 
cite representative examples here. 
, an internationally renowned singer, and her husband and manager, 
 state: 
Since joining us in August 2000 [the petitioner] has held a variety of senior positions within our 
security network, including acting as our Personal Security Officer, a position he maintains to this 
day. Since the opening of our Las Vegas show on March 25,2003, he has added the role of Head of 
Security, to his portfolio, effectively managing a team of professionals. 
Over the years, [the petitioner] has been overseeing security operations of our numerous social and 
business functions around the world. He has always been able to manage our activities with 
discretion and diplomacy under the most stressW situations. We trust his judgment, respect his 
professionalism, and value his dedication. 
m 
a retired New York City Police Sergeant, states: 
I find [the petitioner] to be one of the leading security consultants in the Music Industry today. He is 
a highly organized, take charge professional, with a vast knowledge in the personal protection and 
security field. His outstanding reputation for designing and implementing effective security programs 
has made him one of the most sought after security advisers for countless celebrities and venue 
management groups worldwide. He has demonstrated time and time again his ability to exceed 
everyone's expectations by designing and implementing security strategies, which cover all aspects 
from Threat Assessments to Event Planning. 
While serving as an independent security consultant he has provided security services and safety for 
major recording artists and music industry executives here in the United States and while traveling 
abroad. 
Arthur Belovin states that the petitioner is "one of the most sought after security advisers for countless 
celebrities and venue management groups worldwide," but, aside from the documentation of the petitioner's 
LIN 06 262 51618 
Page 8 
work for, there is no evidence originating from any other celebrities or venue management 
groups to corroborate assertion. Nor is there evidence establishing that the security programs 
designed and implemented by the petitioner constitute original contributions of major significance in the field. 
According to his resume, the petitioner provided transportation (as a driver) and security for - 
when they made appearances in Montreal in 2002, but there is 
no evidence to support these claims. 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. Comrn. 
1972)). 
As the President of International Marketing company, I have worked closely with [the 
petitioner] in numerous high-pro file events throughout the world. During the past decade [the 
petitioner] has traveled extensively with nd entourage, and has provided an extremely high 
level of onerational and strategic securitv. 
I have observed [the petitioner's] work as leader of the security detail for 
 and family, 
whom I work for as a business consultant. 
I have also observed [the petitioner] execute his complex work as a worldwide logistic and security 
protocol adviser, most notably advancing major events thatis due to perform or appear at, 
including the Super Bowl, The Grammy Awards, and all the major TV award and talkhews shows. 
[The petitioner] has shown an amazing attention to detail, enabling entourage to move 
smoothly and safely through what very often can be a chaotic situation. His leadership of the security 
team has also been of the highest quality, as he has overseen the best, most highly motivated security 
group that I have seen in my 20+ years in the entertainment industry. 
~irector of Security, Suncoast Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada, states: 
I have known [the petitioner] both socially and professionally for over three years. 
 A mutual 
friend . . . introduced us to each other. [The petitioner] is in charge of the protective detail for Ms. 
and her family. 
Over the past three years, I have personally observed [the petitioner] in a professional setting in which 
he conducted his security responsibilities with the utmost diligence, care and precision while being 
ever cognizant not to violate any Federal or State laws of the United States of America. 
[The petitioner's] expertise in the field of security is unparalleled as evidenced by his extensive 
background as a security consultant and advisor for major events and award shows where - 
LIN 06 262 51618 
Page 9 
and other high profile celebrities and dignitaries are in attendance both in the United States and 
abroad. 
President and Chief Executive Officer, Quality Investigations, Inc., Henderson, Nevada, 
states: 
I met [the petitioner] in 2003, through my contract relationship with a prominent international 
entertainer at CDA Las Vegas. 
[The petitioner] is currently the Director of Security for CDA Las Vegas and oversees the compliance 
of several employees and vendors who have access to his client. 
Due to the nature of my work, I have witnessed firsthand the importance of [the petitioner's] personal 
and business relationship with the family. In the security industry one of the most 
difficult adjustments is the demand for inter-personal skills amongst executive security personnel. 
Oftentimes the personal relationship is built on trust and intimacy due to the number of hours per day 
spent traveling together for assignments. [The petitioner] excels in this area. 
I have had the pleasure of teaching [the petitioner] for the past 9 years at Kung Fu Canada . . . . 
Honest and reliable, [the petitioner] has held several high level security positions where he has been 
responsible for the safety of many prominent figures. In his current position as worldwide logistic 
and security protocol advisor and consultant for the celebrated family, [the petitioner] 
goes to great lengths to ensure the family's protection and well being: traveling with the family and 
assuring security protocols are met at all times. An invaluable member of the security team, [the 
petitioner] continues to hold the family's utmost confidence and trust. 
The preceding letters of recommendation reflect that the petitioner has performed admirably in providing 
security for the 
 family. The letters also indicate that the petitioner has earned the respect of 
those close to him based on the professionalism he displays in performing his security duties. Aside from 
showing that the petitioner fulfilled hls obligation to protect his clients, the letters of recommendation do not 
specify what the petitioner's original contributions in the security field have been, nor is there an explanation 
indicating how any such contributions were of major significance to his industry. According to the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 record reflects that the petitioner is a skilled professional, the evidence submitted by him does not 
establish that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field of security. For example, 
there is no evidence showing that security tactics developed by the petitioner have significantly influenced 
others in his field or that the field has somehow changed as result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this criterion. 
The opinions of experts in the field and those close to the petitioner, while not without weight, cannot form 
LIN 06 262 51618 
Page 10 
the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Cornmr. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of recommendation letters supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the authors' 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 a security 
consultant 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 perfrmed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
We withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
In order to establish that he performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. The record includes ample published 
material demonstrating that has a distinguished reputation in the music industry. However, there 
is no evidence showing that CDA Productions, Inc. or the petitioner's security consulting service has earned a 
distinguished reputation in the security industry. Further, the evidence submitted by the petitioner is not 
adequate to demonstrate that he was responsible for CDA Productions, Inc. or his other employers' success or 
standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" and indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets tlus criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the3eld. 
The petitioner submitted a January 31, 2006 letter from CDA Productions, Inc. stating that he "has an 
employment contract for a period of three (3) years and receives an annual salary of ninety thousand one 
hundred seventy dollars ($90,170.00) together with medical benefits." 
On appeal, counsel states: "According to 0-Net, under the job title of "security guards" and "bodyguards" 
section 33-0932[,] the average salary . . . is $20,520.00. Thus, clearly [the petitioner's] salary of $90,170 is 
almost 4 % times more than the average salary, according to 0-Net." The record, however, includes no 
documentary evidence of the 0-Net salary data or information about 0-Net. Without documentary evidence 
from 0-Net, 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 
1 988); Matter of Laureano, 1 9 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1 983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). Further, the plain language of tlus regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to submit 
LIN 06 262 51618 
Page 11 
evidence of a high salary "in relation to others in the field." As a basis for comparison, the petitioner relies 
upon "average salary" statistics for "security guards" and "bodyguards." This petition, however, identifies 
the petitioner as a "security consultant" who provides executive security for nd her family. In 
this instance, the basis for salary comparison selected by counsel is not appropriate for two reasons. First, the 
petitioner must submit evidence showing that his salary is significantly high in relation to that of security 
consultants (rather than security guards). Second, the petitioner's evidence must demonstrate that his salary 
places him at the very top of his field rather than simply above average in his field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). There is no evidence showing that the petitioner has earned a level of compensation that places 
hlrn among the highest paid security consultants in the United States, Canada, or any other country. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or 
that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. @ 204.5(h)(3). The &rector's decision, 
however, failed to explain the deficiencies in the evidence submitted such that the petitioner could file a 
meaningll appeal addressing those deficiencies. As the petition is not approvable, we must remand the matter 
to the director for issuance of a new decision that properly addresses the precedng deficiencies in the petitioner's 
evidence for each of the applicable regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)? The documentation submitted 
in support of a claim of extraorhary ability must clearly demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained 
national or international acclaim, is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor, and seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
As always, the burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. @ 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. 
4 
 The director may also address any firher deficiencies found in the petitioner's evidence not included in the AAO's 
discussion of the regulatory criteria.