dismissed O-1A Case: Animal Science

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 1 4 2013 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
T,~hank you, . . 
'%~·. · . . ·~i· · .. · ·.: .: ~;;~ 
r·.:. f' ... ' ... ...... . .. ' 
i -· :.~-' 
Ron Ros~nberg . 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition, and 
certified the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The AAO will affirm the director's 
decision to deny the petition. 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant 
to section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The petitioner states that it 
operates a pharmaceuticals/healthcare business. It seeks to employ the beneficiary in the position of 
Manager, Fresh Cow Reproduction for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 
has received "sustained national or international acclaim" or to demonstrate that he is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. Specifically, the director 
determined that the evidence submitted did not satisfy the criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(A) or at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B). 
The director issued a notice of certification advising the petitioner that the matter has been certified 
to the AAO pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 103.4(a)(2), and granting 30 days in which to submit a brief or 
written statement. As of this date, the AAO has not received a brief or statement from counsel or the 
petitioner, and the record will be considered complete. 
For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will affirm the director's decision to deny the petition. 
I. TheLaw 
Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i), provides for the classification of a 
qualified alien who: 
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, and 
seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability . 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics means a 
level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have 
arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive for 
aliens in the fields of business, education, athletics, and the sciences. See 59 FR 41818, 41819 
(August 15, 1994); 137 Cong. Rec. S18242, 18247 (daily ed., Nov. 26, 1991) (comparing and 
discussing the lower standard for the arts). 
In a policy memorandum, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) emphasized: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
It must be remembered that the standards for 0-1 aliens in the fields of business, 
education, athletics, and the sciences are extremely high. The 0-1 classification should 
be reserved only for those aliens who have reached the very top of their occupation or 
profession. The 0-1 classification is substantially higher than the old H-lB prominent 
standard. Officers involved in the adjudication of these petitions should not "water 
down" the classification by approving 0-1 petitions for prominent aliens. 
Memorandum, Lawrence Weinig, Acting Asst. Comm'r., INS, "Policy Guidelines for the 
Adjudication of 0 and P Petitions" (June 25, 1992). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, 
education, business, or athletics. An alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of 
science, education, business, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition for achievements in the field of expertise by 
providing evidence of: 
(A) Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(1) Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(2) 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 or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields; 
(3) Published material in professional or major trade publications or major 
media about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which 
classification is sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of 
such published material, and any necessary translation; 
(4) Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to 
that for which classification is sought; 
(5) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
(6) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, m 
professional journals, or other major media; 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
(7) Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity 
for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(8) Evidence that alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a 
high salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or 
other reliable evidence. 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in 
order to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(2)(iii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of 
the alien's achievement and be executed by an officer or responsible person 
employed by the institution, firm, establishment, or organization where the work 
was performed. 
(B) Affidavits written by present or former employers or recognized experts certifying 
to the recognition and extraordinary ability ... shall specifically describe the 
alien's recognition and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the 
expertise of the affiant and the manner in which the affiant acquired such 
information. 
The decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a particular case is dependent 
upon the quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. The 
mere fact that the petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the 
regulation does not necessarily establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg 
at 41820. 
In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-part approach 
set forth in a 2010 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this nonimmigrant 
classification, the regulations reviewed by the Kazarian court require the petitioner to submit evidence 
pertaining to at least three out of ten alternative criteria in order to establish a beneficiary's eligibility as 
an alien with extraordinary ability. Cf 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Although the court upheld the AAO's 
decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to 
meet a given evidentiary criterion. The court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate 
concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet two of the criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Jd. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first 
counted and then, if qualifying under at least three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits 
determination. 
The AAO finds the Kazarian court's two part approach to be appropriate for evaluating the regulatory 
criteria set forth for 0-1 nonimmigrant petitions for aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iii), (iv) and (v). Therefore, in reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the 
test set forth in Kazarian. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9
1
h Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
In this matter, the AAO has reviewed the evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion 
claimed. As the petitioner has failed to submit evidence that satisfies three of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B), the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence. 
II. Discussion 
The petitioner filed the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on September 21, 2009. The 
petitioner describes its business activities and the beneficiary's proposed position as "Manager 
" as follows: 
Recently [the beneficiary] was hired by [the petitioner], a leading pharmaceutical 
company in the animal health arena . . . 1 [The beneficiary] applies his cutting-edge 
knowledge and research in the areas of animal health, preventative medicine, and 
fertility to make positive changes that will bring value to dairy producers and the dairy 
industry. Additionally [the petitioner] has a commitment to develop and apply cutting­
edge research to improve animal well-being and the production of a safe and high­
quality food supply, and educating clients and veterinarians about proper timing and 
effective treatment choices for sick animals. 
* * * 
As Manager [the beneficiary] will design and conduct field 
trials in dairy cow nutrition, reproduction and health, and call on dairy producers, 
veterinarians, dealers, consultants, and distributor representatives to sell [the 
petitioner's] products and services that address a broad array of animal health and 
production issues .... 
The petitioner stated that the beneficiary's work "is regarded as extraordinary by experts in the 
worldwide research community." The petitioner also stated that it considers "[the beneficiary's] 
1 
At the time of filing, the petitioner stated it employed the beneficiary "on Optional Practical Training (OPT) valid 
through September 29, 2009." 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
distinguished accomplishments and extraordinary ability in the field of Postpartum health and 
reproduction of dairy cows essential in realizing its commitment to continuous improvement upon what 
is essential to human progress." The petitioner further stated that the beneficiary's knowledge and 
experience "are essential in creating a strong partnership with members of the industry in California to 
foster improved research and technology, and strengthen the impact of [the petitioner] on the local 
industry." 
The record consists of: the Form 1-129 petition and supporting evidence; the director's request for 
evidence dated October 5, 2009 and the petitioner's response; and, the director's decision dated 
November 18, 2009 and her notice of certification. The AAO has reviewed the evidence of record in its 
entirety in reaching its decision. 
A. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Regulatory Criteria 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has 
received a major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), then it 
will meet its burden of proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The 
regulations cite to the Nobel Prize as an example of a major award. !d. The petitioner does not 
claim that the beneficiary can meet this criterion. 
As there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, 
the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the eight criteria set 
forth at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The petitioner has submitted evidence relating to the criteria 
at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1),(2),(4),(5),(6) and (8). The petitioner has not submitted any 
evidence relating to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B) (3) and (7), and raises no objection 
to the director's determination that these criteria have not been met. The remaining six criteria will 
be discussed below. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
To meet criterion number one, the petitioner must submit documentation of the alien's receipt of 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l). 
In a letter dated September 18, 2009, counsel addressed the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B), claiming that the beneficiary meets this criterion based upon his receipt of the 
following prizes or awards: 
• 
• 
Gainesville, 
$200 travel grant for travel to the 
(2006), held in Minneapolis, Minnesota; 
Gainesville, $200 travel grant for travel to the 
(2004), held in Porto Seguro, 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
Bania, Brazil; 
• Gainesville, $200 travel grant for travel to the 
(2003), held in Phoenix, Arizona; 
• Award of two-year Graduate Scholarship from the 
, Gainesville (2001 ). 
Scholarships are generally based on past academic achievement, not for accomplishments in a field of 
endeavor. Such support funding is presented not to established researchers with active professional 
careers, but rather to students seeking to further their research, training and experience. 
In a letter dated November 2, 2009, in response to the director's request for evidence (RFE) counsel 
stated as follows: 
The research produced by Ph.D. students advances the field of endeavor and awards for 
excellence are important awards within the field and often bring the top researchers to 
the attention of other researchers in the U.S. and abroad. 
While they may be prestigious, scholarships, fellowships and other sources of competitive financial 
support are not nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards because only other students 
- not recognized experts in the field - compete for such funding. We cannot conclude that receiving 
funding for one's research and academic training constitutes receipt of a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Furthermore, academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. 
As such, academic scholarships, student awards, and financial aid awards cannot be considered 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. 
Academic awards and honors received while preparing for a vocation fall substantially short of 
constituting a national or international prize or award for recognition in the field. Scholarships are 
simply not evidence of international recognition in the field. Rather, they represent high academic 
achievements in comparison with his fellow students. 
Similarly, the beneficiary's receipt of the travel grants from the Gainesville 
during his graduate studies at the university are institutional awards that have not been shown to be 
recognized nationally or internationally. 
Further, it is the petitioner's burden to establish every element of this criterion. While the petitioner 
has provided evidence of the beneficiary's receipt of the scholarship and travel grants listed, the 
petitioner has not provided any documentation explaining the significance of these awards, and thus 
there is no evidence demonstrating that the beneficiary's receipt of such awards is tantamount to a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the beneficiary's field of 
endeavor. 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 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980) 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
For the reasons stated above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sough~ which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's election to membership of The 
submitted materials about reveal that invites to full membership those who have 
demonstrated "noteworthy 
achievement as an original investigator in a field of pure or applied science." 
These achievements must be evidenced by "publications, patents, written reports or a thesis or 
dissertation." A noteworthy achievement is not necessarily an outstanding achievement. In fact, the 
record suggests that the society does not take a particularly strict view of noteworthy achievements. 
Specifically, the materials imply that publication is sufficient to constitute a noteworthy achievement. 
Publication in research is the norm, rather than the exception. We cannot conclude that publication is 
an outstanding achievement. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a copy of the applicant's membership record reflecting that the 
beneficiary's Trainee-Graduate membership in the Society for the 1s 
pending. The petitioner also submits information reflecting that the has certain educational and 
professional requirements for trainee members, such as being a student-in-training in the field of 
reproductive biology, obtaining a recommendation from a Regular member of the society and obtaining 
a letter from a major professor or mentor verifying trainee status. Such requirements are not 
"outstanding achievements" in the field. Regardless, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary is a member of the . Moreover, even if the beneficiary is a member, he is only a student 
member of the . The petitioner provided information on membership downloaded from its 
website. While may confer membership to Regular members "on the basis of scientific 
productivity and continuing interest in the field of reproduction or a related area," the record contains no 
evidence that regular members, let alone student members, must demonstrate outstanding achievements. 
Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which classification is 
sought 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the journal 
manuscript. 
invited the beneficiary to review a 
As the plain language of the regulation requires ''the alien's participation ... as a judge of the work of 
others," the mere request to serve as a judge, or even agreeing to judge, without evidence of actually 
judging the work of others is insufficient to meet the plain language of this regulatory criterion. In fact, 
there is no evidence establishing that the petitioner actually completed the requested review for 
For the reasons stated above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets this criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field 
As evidence relating to the beneficiary's original science-related contributions of major significance in 
the academic field, the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's citation record from 
containing approximately six total citations to three of the beneficiary's articles. This information 
demonstrates that only one of the beneficiary's articles has been moderately cited in the several 
years since it was published in 2005. While evidence that the beneficiary's work is widely cited can 
serve to establish the impact of this work, the record does not contain evidence that independent experts 
have consistently cited or relied upon the beneficiary's work. In addition, the petitioner has not 
provided the articles that cite the beneficiary's work to determine whether they substantively discuss the 
beneficiary's work, or simply cite it as one among many other authorities. Further, the petitioner has 
not provided a complete list of the citing articles from which to determine how many may be self­
citations of the beneficiary or his co-authors. 
Counsel asserts that the Scientific Citation Index Impact Factors of the journals that have published the 
beneficiary's work sufficiently establish their impact. The impact of a given journal is not persuasive 
evidence of the impact of every article published in that journal. The fact that a journal has a high 
overall impact factor does not imply that any one article in that journal has had a proportionate 
impact. 
As additional evidence relating to the beneficiary's original science-related contributions of major 
significance in the academic field, the petitioner submitted a total of five letters of support from the 
beneficiary's colleagues and professional contacts. We will address these letters in depth. At the 
outset, however, we note that the letters from and 
while not identical, use very similar language consistent with a common source. We acknowledge 
that the authors signed their letters, affirming the contents. Nevertheless, the use of slightly modified 
boilerplate language somewhat reduces the evidentiary weight of these letters. 
former researcher at the 
Beltsville, Maryland, states he first became familiar with the 
beneficiary's work "through peer review publications and paper presentations at the 
and at Beltsville as an invited speaker." He summarizes the 
beneficiary's research findings regarding the positive effects of on uterine 
involution, stating that the findings "can potentially have a great impact in the dairy industry to 
reduce cost associated antibiotic treatments, milk withholding, and culling rates due to reproductive 
failure." In addition, he summarizes the beneficiary's research findings demonstrating that organic 
sources of Selenium leverage better health and fertility than inorganic forms of Selenium in dairy 
cows with Selenium deficiency, stating that the findings "impact current knowledge of mineral 
supplementation in areas of Selenium deficiency in the U.S.(i.e., southeast) and internationally." 
Further, he summarizes the beneficiary's research findings that sequential strategic feeding of 
omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids resulted in increased fertility in dairy cows, stating that the 
findings "are unprecedented in the 
scientific literature." He states the beneficiary's research findings 
can "optimize production and reproductive efficiency of the USA commercial dairy production 
system." 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
, professor of dairy science at the -Madison states he first became 
familiar with the beneficiary's work "through peer review publications and paper presentations at the 
and the He states that the beneficiary's 
research work on feed supplementation with organic forms of Selenium "helped to advance the 
technology of organic minerals in diets to improve immunity and health of dairy cows." He also 
states that the beneficiary's research revealed that sequential strategic feeding of omega-6 and 
omega-3 fatty acids "results in the best combination to maximize fertility in lactating dairy cows." 
professor of ,, 
states that he has known the beneficiary since the beginning of the 
beneficiary's M.S. program and that he was the co-chair in the beneficiary's Ph.D. program. He is 
also the beneficiary's co-author. He summarizes some ofthe beneficiary's research findings relative 
to the uterine health of dairy cows and states "[the beneficiary] has augmented the awareness of the 
scientific community for a multidisciplinary approach (i.e., Veterinary Medicine, nutrition, 
immunology, and endocrinology) in the areas of dairy cow health and fertility." 
Associate Professor, _ _ 
states that he served on the beneficiary's Ph.D. committee and has known the beneficiary's 
research since the beginning of the beneficiary's master's program. He states he is also the 
beneficiary's co-author on five research articles. He states the beneficiary was the first scientist to 
reveal the positive effects of on uterine involution in dairy cows. He uses identical 
language to in stating and that this finding "can potentially have a great impact in the 
dairy industry to reduce cost associated antibiotic treatments, milk withholding, and culling rates due 
to reproductive failure." He also uses identical language to in stating that the 
beneficiary's research findings regarding sequential strategic feeding of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty 
acids "are unprecedented in the scientific literature." 
Professor, , states he has 
known the beneficiary for the past eight years and was his Master's and doctoral advisor. He states 
that "improvement in the health of postpartum cows (focus on uterine involution and infection), 
reproductive performance, and lactation remain a central focus for researchers and are essential for 
the profitability of dairy operations, animal well-being, and safe food production worldwide." 
summarizes the beneficiary's Master's and doctoral research work impacting those areas. 
He states that the beneficiary "stands poised to markedly benefit the animal production systems of 
the USA." 
Upon review, the preceding letters of recommendation demonstrate that the beneficiary's work has 
earned the respect and admiration of those with whom he has collaborated and consulted, but these 
letters do not establish that he has made original science-related contributions of major significance 
in his field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5), 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 is admired for his skills in the 
field of science, specifically related to dairy cow reproduction, and his work on projects has 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
benefited his colleagues and employers, there is no evidence demonstrating that he has made original 
contributions of major significance in his field. For example, the record does not indicate the extent 
of the petitioner'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 submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
criterion. The opinions of experts in the field, 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 testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of 
those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the content of the 
experts' 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 business executive who has sustained 
national or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the beneficiary'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 of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media 
The director concluded that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to meet this criterion. A 
review of the record reflects that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentation demonstrating the 
beneficiary's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, including journal articles, a book chapter, and articles and abstracts for conferences 
and symposia. 
In light of the above, the AAO withdraws this portion of the director's decision, and finds that the 
evidence satisfies the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o )(3)(iii)(B)(6). 
Evidence that alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary 
or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence 
The petitioner has offered the beneficiary an annual salary of $81,000 for the proffered position of 
Manager- . In the request for evidence, the director advised the petitioner that 
it must submit evidence, such as a statistical comparison of salaries in the beneficiary's field of 
endeavor from the ~ or like organization, to establish that the alien has 
commanded or will command a high salary. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted salary information from the U.S. Department of 
Labor's Foreign Labor Certification Data CenterOnline Wage Library (www.flcdatacenter.com). The 
salary information pertains to the occupation of "Animal Scientist" with the educational level 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
"Bachelor's degree." The information provided indicates that the average salary for the occupation 
ranges from $43,576 to $55,848. 
The petitioner also provided salary data from the same source for the occupation of "Biological 
Scientist," with no set educational level. The information provided indicates that the average salary for 
the occupation ranges from $41,600 to $53,352. 
We find the above-referenced documentation is insufficient to meet the petitioner's evidentiary burden. 
The petitioner has provided wage data for two different occupational titles, one requiring a bachelor's 
degree and the other with no set educational level, in an attempt to establish that the beneficiary earns a 
high salary. The petitioner submitted wage information reflecting salaries for average level positions in 
the field rather than salaries for high level positions. The proffered salary of $81,000 may be high for 
average level positions in the field but may not be considered high for the beneficiary, who has a 
doctoral degree and several years of professional experience. Nor has the petitioner documented 
what salary it typically pays to a Manager· with experience comparable to 
that of the beneficiary; therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the beneficiary's salary is 
comparatively high by the petitioner's own standards. Based on evidence submitted by the petitioner 
we cannot make a determination that the beneficiary's proffered salary is high among similarly 
employed individuals. 
In addition, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has commanded a high salary in the 
past. 
In light of the above, the AAO withdraws this portion of the director's decision, and finds that the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements set forth 
at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). 
Summary 
We concur with the director's determination that 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 eight categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii). 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary is an alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences 
whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, as required 
by section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a consideration of the evidence in the 
context of a final merits determination. However, as discussed above, the petitioner failed to establish 
eligibility under at least three of the evidentiary criteria specified in the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B). The AAO will not conduct a final merits determination. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
For the above-stated reasons, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant 
to the regulatory criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B), and the petition may not be approved. 5 
Accordingly, the AAO shall not disturb the director's denial of the petition. 
ORDER: The director's November 18, 2009 decision is affirmed. The petition is denied. 
5The AAO maintains de novo review. Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding on 
motion or as a result of litigation, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the 
official who made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also Section 103(a)(1) of the Act; 
Section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I & N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987)(holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is 
the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions)~