dismissed O-1A Case: Architecture

identifying d3~ deleted to 
prey elit ::early unwmanted 
invasion QE persond privacy 
PI BLIC COPY 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 07 224 51635 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 2 3 2009 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 l(a)(15)(O)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for the 
specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a 
Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
ohn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
V 
EAC 07 224 5 1635 
'Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
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), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
petitioner, an architectural firm, seeks to employ the beneficiary as a project architect 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 and is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of his 
field of endeavor. The director determined that the evidence submitted did not meet any of the criteria set forth at 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director abused his discretion by determining that the evidence did not 
satisfy the legal standard and evidentiary criteria for 0-1 classification. Counsel further asserts that the 
director's decision failed to acknowledge or discuss additional documentary evidence that was submitted in 
response to a request for evidence. 
Section 10 1 (a)( 1 5)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to 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, whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and who seeks 
to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. The extraordinary ability 
provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Cong. Rec. S18247 (daily ed., 
Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for 0-1 classification, the petitioner must establish that the 
beneficiary is "at the very top" of his field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(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: 
EAC 07 224 5 163 5 
'Page 3 
(I) 
 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, in professional 
journals, or other major media; 
(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 (0)(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. 
The record consists of a Form 1-129 petition with supporting documentation, a request for additional evidence 
(RFE) and the petitioner's reply, the director's decision, and a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. The 
beneficiary in this case is a citizen of Germany who received his Diploma Engineer of Architecture from the 
University of Applied Sciences of Architecture in Trier, Germany in 1993. Since that time, he has 
continuously worked for various architectural firms in Germany. Since 2001, he has also served as the co- 
developer and co-founder of www.persepolis3d.com, an ongoing project dedicated to the virtual 
reconstruction of the ancient Persian city of Persepolis. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as a 
project architect at an annual salary of $45,000, and indicates that his role would be that of a "senior 
designer," with major responsibility for retail projects. 
EAC 07 224 5 163 5 
Page 4 
In denying the petition, the director found that the evidence submitted did not meet any of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. !j 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). The director also observed that there was no evidence that the 
beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award equivalent to that listed at 8 C.F.R. 5 
2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(A). 
The AAO notes that the director's decision included a detailed discussion of the majority of the 
documentation submitted as initial evidence. However, as correctly noted by counsel on appeal, the notice of 
decision failed to mention any of the additional documentation submitted by the petitioner in response to the 
director's request for evidence. As the AAO's review is conducted on a de novo basis, the AAO will herein 
address the totality of the petitioner's evidence. The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on 
a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the 
powers which it would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by 
rule."); see also, Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de 
novo authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 
(2d Cir. 1989). 
Upon review and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is fully 
qualified as an alien with extraordinary ability in architecture. 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received a 
major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), then it will meet its burden of 
proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. There is no evidence that the beneficiary 
has received a Nobel prize or comparable major, internationally recognized award in his field, and the petitioner 
does not claim that the beneficiary meets 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.F.R. 
5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). To meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. !j 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(I), the petitioner must submit 
evidence that the beneficiary has received a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence 
in the field. 
In a letter submitted in support of the petition, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary "has participated in 
numerous competitions and projects in various architectural firms." The beneficiary's resume also indicates that 
he "participated in several public and restricted competitions and presentations," but does not mention his receipt 
of any nationally or internationally recognized prize or award in the field of architecture. 
The petitioner submitted a letter dated July 25, 2007 from , the beneficiary's former 
university professor, who summarized the beneficiary's post-graduation achievements. stated that, 
- 
while the beneficiary was employed by the fi-, the beneficiary participated in the "Schwaben 
which received the Award for Outstanding Buildings from the Alliance of German Architects. 
indicated that the beneficiary performed an "essential and complicated" part of the design and 
construction by planning 21 different fire escape staircases. The petitioner also submitted an employment 
recommendation letter from , which confirmed the beneficiary's involvement in the "Schwaben- 
EAC 07 224 51635 
Page 5 
Galerie" project in 2002 and 2003. However, the employment letter does not mention the beneficiary's essential 
role, or the beneficiary's or firm's receipt of any award for the project. The petitioner did not submit independent 
evidence of the "Award for Outstanding Buildings" referenced by- 
also mentioned in his letter that the beneficiary participated in international competitions such as 
Europan 7, an event sponsored by the European Union for young architects. However, there is no indication that 
the beneficiary received a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award as a result of his participation in 
this event. 
Finally, counsel indicated in her cover letter dated July 28, 2007 that the petitioner was submitting "a 
photocopy of one prize winning submission." The attached evidence included what appears to be a one-page 
excerpt from a magazine, dated February 1991, written in the German language. The document bears the 
following hand-written notation: "Architecture Magazine, 'Wettbewerbe Aktuell,' prize winning 
competition." The significance of this evidence is unclear. Because the petitioner failed to submit a translation 
of the document, the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. See 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this 
proceeding. 
The director issued a request for evidence (WE) on August 14, 2007, requesting, inter alia, that the petitioner 
submit additional evidence to establish that the beneficiary has received nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes for excellence in his field. 
In response to the RFE, counsel for the petitioner stated that "architecture is a profession marked by team 
participation and accomplishment," and therefore awards in the field are typically won by firms and/or findteam 
participants, even though the individual architects are known in the field. Counsel asserted that the beneficiary's 
recognition "has been awarded to the firms with which, and projects on which, he has worked." Counsel 
indicated that the petitioner submitted evidence of those prizes and awards, but did not identify to which specific 
evidence she was referring. Finally, counsel stated that "where we do not have photographs or photocopies of 
nationally and internationally recognized prizes or awards to attach, we hope you will find the names of the prizes 
andlor awards (as provided by the various experts who wrote opinion letters and evaluations) helpful." Counsel 
provided an excerpt from letter in support of her claim that the beneficiary has received national or 
internationally recognized prizes. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence of the beneficiary's receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes for excellence in his field of endeavor. The petitioner has not adequately 
explained why documentary evidence of such awards or prizes is not available. The one document provided 
as evidence of a "prize winning competition," was dated 1991, when the beneficiary was still a university 
student. If the beneficiary did in fact participate in award-winning projects while employed as an architect for 
various firms in Germany, it is unclear why the employers themselves made no mention of such awards or the 
significance of such awards in their recommendation letters written on the beneficiary's behalf. Absent 
additional documentary evidence, third-party statement that the beneficiary participated in 
award-winning projects is insufficient to meet this criterion. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 
EAC 07 224 5 1635 
Page 6 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
In order to establish that the beneficiary meets the second criterion, at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(2), the 
petitioner must document 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 initial evidence did not include any documentation of the 
beneficiary's membership in architectural associations. In the RFE, the director requested evidence to 
establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. Counsel did not refer to this criterion in her response letter, 
and the additional evidence submitted in response to the RFE did not address the beneficiary's membership in 
such an association. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(3) requires the petitioner to submit 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. In this regard, the petitioner has submitted the following documentation: 
"Digital Life Among the Ruins," published in Die Rheinphalz (no date provided). This 
article from a German newspaper discusses the beneficiary's work on the project 
"Persepolis3D," and the project's exhibition at the Historical Museum of the Palatinate in 
Speyer, Germany. The beneficiary was interviewed for the article. The article indicates that 
the beneficiary and his partner have been "so successful with the project Persepolis3D that 
they have now become specialist in the virtual reconstruction of historical cities." 
"Persepolis," published in the April 2006 issue Arte Magazine. This article was published 
in the German language and the petitioner did not submit an English translation. The 
beneficiary's name appears in the article. 
"Grandeur of Achmaemenid Persia Revisited in Germany," published on September 11, 
2006 by Cultural Heritage News Agency at <http://www.chnpress.com> on September 11, 
2006. The article discusses the exhibition "Splendor and Grandeur of the Great Kings - The 
Persian Empire" which was open to the public at the Historical Museum of the Palatinate in 
Speyer, Germany from July 8 to October 29, 2006. The article highlights virtual 
construction animations of Persepolis as a highlight of the exhibit, noting that the film was 
created by Persepolis3D, an organization operated by the beneficiary and his partner. 
"A Unique Project for the German Language World - Palaces of Persepolis Virtually 
Reconstructed - A Presentation in Glamorous Colors," published July 7, 2006 by Speyer- 
aktuell newspaper at <http://www.speyer-aktuell.de>. The article includes a quote from the 
museum director who states that "this exhibition will cause excitement in the landscape of 
Gem museums." The article also quotes the beneficiary and his partner, noting that they 
explained "how they realized the extensive reconstruction of the palaces of Persepolis," at a 
EAC 07 224 5 1635 
Page 7 
press conference held at the opening of the Persian Empire exhibit at the Historical 
Museum of the Palatinate. 
"Persepolis, l'empire perse revele," published by Arte on April 1, 2006 at 
http://www.arte.tv. The article is written in French and is not accompanied by an English 
translation. The document bears a handwritten notation that states "Website of the 
FrenchIGerman TV, Arte." 
"Zwishen Orient und Okzident." This appears to be a newspaper article published in 
Speverer Ausstellung in the summer of 2006, in connection with a museum exhibitition of 
the Persepolis3D project. The petitioner did not submit an English translation of the 
German-language article. 
"Virtual Reconstruction of Persepolis by Two Architects," published by BBC Persian.com 
(October 4,2005). The article is written about the "Persepolis" documentary, and notes that 
it is the "second long documentary movie of Persepolis using the art of digital 
visualization," following the release of a movie entitled "Persepolis Recreated." The article 
indicates that the director of the film discovered the beneficiary's work on the Persepolis 3D 
project on the Internet and contacted the beneficiary and his partner for collaboration. The 
finished movie, which is 60 minutes in length, includes 12 minutes of virtual reconstruction 
images. The article includes an interview with the beneficiary and his partner regarding 
ancient Iranian architecture and the reconstruction project. They indicate that their main 
goal is for the work to be used in museums around the world. The article notes that the film 
would be shown in French and German on Arte television in January 2006. 
In the RFE issued on August 14, 2007, the director acknowledged evidence that the beneficiary has been 
mentioned in some medialtrade publications in the industry. However, the director advised the petitioner that it 
could not be determined whether the circulation of the media was large enough to be considered "major media." 
In reply to the director's request, counsel for the petitioner stated the following: 
With all due respect, [the beneficiary] has not just been casually mentioned as USCIS implies. 
Careful review of the English and German texts will show that [the beneficiary] has been 
featured in the publications submitted, including the title, names and dates of publication 
whether in print or electronically - providing the website for verification. These publications 
show international distribution and audiences. 
The petitioner did not submit any additional documentary evidence to satisfy the criterion in response to the 
RFE. 
Upon review, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion. As noted above, several 
of the submitted articles were not accompanied by English translations. Because the petitioner failed to submit 
certified translations of the documents, the AAO cannot determine whether such evidence supports the 
EAC 07 224 5 1635 
Page 8 
petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3). Accordingly, some of the submitted evidence is not probative 
and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
Moreover, the petitioner's assertion that the articles appeared in publications with "international distribution 
and audiences" is insufficient to establish that the articles should be considered "major media," as the 
petitioner submitted no concrete evidence to support its claims. The burden is not on USCIS to find support 
for the petitioner's claim that the publications should be considered "major media." Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361, places the burden of proof on the party seeking benefits. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Further, the director also observed, generally, that the recognition the beneficiary received for the Persepolis 
3d project has focused on the historical and cultural significance of the project, rather than on than the 
architectural achievements of the project's co-creators. The director observed that the skills required to create 
a virtual reconstruction of ancient buildings are not of the same nature required to perform the beneficiary's 
proposed duties as a project architect in the United States. The AAO notes that the submitted articles do not 
reference the beneficiary's achievements as an architect other than noting that he is "a specialist in the virtual 
reconstruction of historical cities." 
As noted above, section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to 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, whose achievements have been recognized in the field as shown by 
extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary 
ability. 
The AAO does not entirely concur with the director's assessment that the beneficiary's work on the Persepolis 3D 
project is wholIy unrelated to the proffered position as a project architect responsible for designing retail stores, 
and thus not "in the area of extraordinary ability." The beneficiary applied his education, training and skills as an 
architect to perform the virtual reconstruction work, although it does not appear that the Persepolis 3D project 
required him to perform the full range of duties normally performed by an architect employed in a more 
traditional capacity. Therefore, the AAO will not entirely discount the beneficiary's accomplishments and 
recognition earned as a result of the Persepolis 3D project. However, it is reasonable to expect an alien with 
extraordinary ability in architecture, who is coming to the United States to assume a traditional position as an 
architect, to submit evidence clearly relating to his achievements and recognition by his peers in the field of 
architecture. None of the submitted articles were from professional or trade journals in the architectural field. 
Furthermore, the regulations require the petitioner to establish through the submission of extensive evidence that 
the beneficiary has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and recognition for achievements in the 
field of endeavor. To the extent that the beneficiary has been recognized in the media for his work, it has been for 
a single achievement. The petitioner's evidence relating to publications about the beneficiary are also all limited to 
articles published in 2006, and do not show a pattern of sustained national or international recognition. The 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
EAC 07 224 5 1635 
Page 9 
In order to meet the fourth criterion, the petitioner must submit 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. 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(4). The petitioner did not submit any documentary 
evidence related to this criterion, or otherwise claim that the beneficiary could satisfy this criterion. 
The fifth criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(5). The 
petitioner submitted the above-referenced letter from who states that the beneficiary studied 
architecture at the University of Applied Sciences under his direction from October 1984 until January 1993. 
discusses the beneficiary's project work with two architectural firms, and states that the 
beneficiary has "extraordinary abilities in design which makes him unique as a senior design architect." 
notes that the beneficiary "understands architecture as Applied Art" and states that his work is 
distinguished by "searching for useful and precise construction solutions which meet the economic demands 
by taking into consideration the cultural environment as well as innovative techniques." further 
indicates that the beneficiary "works on an extraordinary intellectual and artistic level." 
also references the beneficiary's virtual reconstruction of the ancient ci 
 of Persepolis, noting 
that the project "received many acknowledgements from scholars in the field." & indicates that the 
beneficiary's virtual reconstruction of Persepolis is "unique worldwide in its exactitude regarding architecture, 
construction and town planning." noted that the beneficiary's work on the project is permanently 
displayed at the British Museum, was temporarily exhibited at the Historical Museum of Palatinate, and was 
the subject of a documentary that appeared on "the highly regarded GermanIFrench cultural TV ARTE." 
The petitioner's initial evidence also included a letter dated July 16, 2007 from 
 private 
secretary to . 
 states that the beneficiary "is an architect by profession 
and has worked on projects that contribute to the resistance of the Iranian people against the theocratic regime 
of the Islamic Republic of Iran." 
 states that the beneficiary's opposition activities are manifested 
in the website www.persepolis3d.com, "which serves as a vehicle to transmit news bulletins regarding the 
cultural heritage of Iran and its current deconstruction by the regime in Tehran." Finally,- 
describes the beneficiary as "uniquely talented," and "committed to art, culture, and justice." 
The petitioner submitted a brochure for an exhibit titled "Ancient Persia, Legacy & Magnificence" at the 
British Museum's Clore Education Centre. The exhibit features the documentary "Persepolis, a 
Reconstruction," directed by The brochure includes the following synopsis: 
A documentary that attempts to rebuild Persepolis at the time of the Achaemenid Empire, 
with the methods of digitalization. The film is about Persepolis and its reconstructions since 
the 1930s when the first reconstruction of the 'Harem' (the Persepolis Museum of today) was 
completed by Freidrich Krefter and Ernst Herzfeld based on archaeological findings, until 
now, when architects [the beneficiary] and Wolfgang Gambke used computer technology for 
its virtual reconstruction. The film will cover the methodology of this digital reconstruction 
and its sources using novel pictures and HDTV technology to rebuild a possible version of 
EAC 07 224 5 1635 
Page 10 
the original Persepolis. The screening is accompanied by the live commentary of [the 
beneficiary]. . . . This is one of two documentaries which attempt such a reconstruction. 
The petitioner also submitted excerpts from the Persepolis 3D web site, which provides the following 
information regarding the project: 
The goal of this endeavor is to bring Persepolis back to life - not only to show the 
complexities of its urban design but also to illuminate the wealth of details to a wide 
spectrum of both professionals and interested laymen alike. The presented virtual 
reconstruction is based on the documentation obtained from the excavations led by E. 
Herzfeld, F. Krefter, and E.F. Schmidt. Especially helpful to our projects was the tremendous 
efforts of the architect, Friedrich Krefter, who in 1933 oversaw the excavations of the bygone 
empire and from 1963 to 1970 established a set of standards for Persepolis and therewith, a 
wealth of reconstruction drawings and two scale models of the great terraces of the 
Achaemenid residential palace including its volumes, the great entrance vestibules and 
interiors are all standing once again before our eyes. 
The record shows that the beneficiary has participated in presentations of the Persepolis 3D project at various 
international conferences. One such conference was the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in 
Archaeoloy (CAA) 2007 conference held in Berlin in April 2007. The beneficiary's presentation was part of a 
workshop entitled "Virtual Reconstruction and Visualization." CAA is described as "an international 
organization bringing together archaeologists, mathematicians and computer scientists." 
The beneficiary also participated in the 1 lth Annual International Congress "Cultural Heritage and New 
Technologies," held in Vienna, Austria in October 2006. The beneficiary's presentation was part of a 
workshop entitled "How to Publish 'Old' Excavations with New Technologies." 
In addition, the evidence shows that the beneficiary conducted two presentations at "The World of 
Achaemenid Persia" conference held at the British Museum in London from September 29 through October 1, 
2006. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter dated July 18, 2007 from - Professor of Classics at 
the University of Buffalo.-states that he has known the beneficiary for over a year and is familiar 
with the beneficiary's work as an architect and computer modeler. states: "One of my professional 
areas is the history of ancient architecture and I use virtual reality as a teaching tool and a method of 
publication. Since I am familiar with this area of scholarship, I knew of Persepolis 3D and sought [the 
beneficiary] out." indicates that he invited the beneficiary to participate in the above-referenced 
workshop held in Vienna. He states that the beneficiary "is a gifted person," with a "good mind and a fine 
hand," and whose work "follows sound engineering principals [sic] and makes historical and practical sense." 
In the Request for Evidence that director stated: "It is evident that the beneficiary, along with his partner, has 
made contributions in the field of architectural/computer imaging; however, it is not evident that the 
contributions have made a major impact in the field of architecture." 
EAC 07 224 51635 
Page 11 
In response to the RFE, counsel stated that 
 letter "presents examples from [the beneficiary's] 
career accomplishments in evidence of [the beneficiary's] original scholarly and business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field of architecture." 
The petitioner also submitted an expert opinion letter from 
 Principal of studio twentyseven 
architecture located in Washington, D.C., and President of the Washington Chapter of the American Institute 
of Architects. indicates that he reviewed the beneficiary's website, the 0-1 petition filed by the 
petitioner, and supplemental drawings, designs and documents provided by the beneficiary. - opines 
that "[the beneficiary's] skills, training, credentials, expertise, and techniques distinguish him as a hi hl 
skilled and talented architect and will be an asset to the United States architectural profession." a 
emphasizes that the beneficiary has worked with highly acclaimed European architects, and that "this fact 
alone exemplifies the caliber of his ability, knowledge and respect within the international architectural 
community." concludes by stating that the beneficiary's "experience and work raises him to the class 
of foreign national who may be called outstanding," and that the beneficiary is "undoubtedly an alien of 
extraordinary ability in architecture." 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
 President of the Institute for Visualization 
of History, Inc. who, according to his biography, has supervised "computer graphics visualizations of two 
dozen archaeological and historical sites." 
 states: 
I know [the beneficiary] through his excellent work both in the field of virtual heritage and 
his work as an architect. In virtual heritage, he is well-known for the detail, accuracy and 
precision he brought to visualizations of ancient Persepolis, capital city of the Persians, in his 
native Iran. He was also responsible for the advertising and marketing of a comprehensive 
packet of information supporting the 3D computer models he built, as well as for successfully 
introducing the package to the British Museum, London, one of the world's great ancient art 
venues and one not normally prone to the inclusion of digital media in its galleries. 
He brings the same attention to detail and expansive knowledge of visualization techniques to 
his work as an architect, having working in many different capacities . . . for building projects 
all across the European Union. 
The director found that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. The director 
acknowledged the recognition the beneficiary has received as a result of his work on the Persepolis 3d project, 
but found the evidence insufficient to establish that the beneficiary, as a result of this project, is deemed to 
have made an original contribution of major significance in the field of architecture. 
The AAO concurs that the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy this criteria. Based on 
the evidence submitted, it is evident that the beneficiary's work was based on the architectural drawings and 
two-dimension models of another architect. mentioned that the beneficiary "followed the work of 
German and American architectural historians." There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the 
beneficiary introduced new computer modeling techniques to the field, or otherwise pioneered new methods 
of visual reconstruction of ancient sites. While the work earned sufficient acclaim to be included in two 
EAC 07 224 5 1635 
'Page 12 
museum exhibitions, they were not architectural exhibitions, but rather historical exhibitions focused on the 
art, culture and history of ancient Persia. The evidence indicates that the beneficiary and his partner, as a 
result of the project, are deemed to be "specialists in the virtual reconstruction of historical cities," and have 
earned some recognition within this specialized community of architectural historians. The museum 
exhibitions, documentary, and related lectures and presentations that have resulted from the Persepolis 3D 
project have established the beneficiary as a specialist in the visual reconstruction field. However, the record 
does not establish that the beneficiary has received the type of acclaim for an original contribution of major 
significance that would place the beneficiary at the top of the field of architecture. The petitioner has not 
provided evidence of any original contributions of major significance made by the beneficiary to the field of 
architecture or architectural design, outside of the area of visual reconstruction and modeling of ancient cities. 
The sixth criterion requires the petitioner to establish that the beneficiary has authored scholarly articles in the 
field, which appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. 5 
214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(6). The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
In order to meet the seventh criterion, the petitioner must submit evidence that the beneficiary has been employed 
in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(7). The petitioner submitted employment recommendation letters from two firms 
that employed the beneficiary in Germany. of Architekturburo Bohm states that the beneficiary was 
employed with the firm from September 1993 until March 1995. r mentioned the beneficiary's duties 
relating to the Peek & Cloppenburg department store project, and noted that the beneficiary "knew how to 
implement solutions which are complex on a creative and constructive level, on site with great commitment and 
to our fullest satisfaction.' described the beneficiary as a "good colleague." 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from 
 of Chapman Taylor, Dusseldorf, a firm that 
employed the beneficiary from December 2001 until December 2003. The letter describes the beneficiary's duties 
performed on two different projects during this employment, and notes that he performed his tasks to the firm's 
"fullest satisfaction. states that the beneficiary worked in quick manner, and noted that his work 
was "characterized by his keen perception and creativity." further describes the beneficiary as 
exhibiting "impeccable" behavior, and as having a helpful manner and a well-balanced temperament. 
According to the beneficiary's resume, he has served as co-developer and co-founder of persepolis3d.com 
since 2001. It is not clear whether he has simultaneously worked for one or more architectural firms since that 
time. 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for any 
architectural firm in a traditional role as a design architect. While the beneficiary's former employers 
certainly convey their satisfaction with his architectural work and overall job performance, the record does 
not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary's assignments in either firm were in a "critical 
or essential capacity." Rather, the letters submitted convey that the beneficiary is a talented architect who 
performed his duties satisfactorily during his employment. 
EAC 07 224 51635 
Page 13 
The evidence establishes that the beneficiary has served in a critical and essential role for the Persepolis3d 
project, and that the project itself has earned a distinguished reputation among Persian historians and visual 
reconstruction specialists. However, it is unclear whether his role in the project can be considered 
"employment" or whether the project itself constitutes an "organization or establishment." It appears based on 
the beneficiary's resume and the petitioner's initial support letter that the beneficiary continued working as an 
architect while maintaining and building the Persepolis virtual reconstruction website. Furthermore, as 
discussed above, the beneficiary's duties associated with this project are far removed from those he will 
perform in the United States as a project architect, to the extent that the work is in "the same field" using only 
the broadest interpretation of the term. Therefore, the beneficiary's role in this project alone is insufficient to 
establish that he meets this criterion. 
The eighth criterion requires the petitioner to establish that the beneficiary has either commanded a high salary or 
will command a high salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence. 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(8). 
The petitioner has offered the beneficiary an annual salary of $45,000. In the request for evidence, the director 
observed that the proffered salary does not appear to be high compared with others in the industry. In 
response, the petitioner emphasized that the beneficiary has no commercial experience in the United States 
and no U.S. clients to bring to the firm. The petitioner stated that it expects the beneficiary to be in demand 
and bring in additional clients to the firm over the next several years, at which point his salary would be 
adjusted upward. The petitioner asserted that the offered salary is between the 75th and 9oth percentile for an 
entry-level architect in the Washington, D.C. area. The petitioner states that the salary is high compared to 
others in the industry "where the candidate has no portable business that would be expected to follow him to a 
new firm." 
As evidence of the beneficiary's previous remuneration for services, the petitioner submitted a quotation 
submitted to the British Museum for "Ancient Iran - Persepolis AV Project" indicating that the beneficiary 
and his partner would receive payment in the amount of £1 1,122 for a six minute animation. The petitioner 
also submitted a contract relating to the airing of "Persepolis - A Reconstruction" on German television, 
indicating an agreed price of 13,500 Euros. The contract is written in German and accompanied by only a 
brief summary translation. 
Upon review, the evidence does not establish that the beneficiary has commanded or will command a high 
salary as an architect. The proffered salary of $45,000, while claimed to be in the upper range for an "entry 
level" architect, cannot be considered high for the beneficiary, who has over a decade of professional 
experience. The petitioner has not documented what salary it typically pays to an entry level architect with no 
pre-existing client base; therefore, it is impossible to determine whether the beneficiary's salary is 
comparatively high by the petitioner's own standards. 
The petitioner has also poorly documented the remuneration received by the beneficiary in the past. The 
payments received for the airing of the documentary which included the beneficiary's work cannot be 
considered a salary the beneficiary earned as an architect. The beneficiary is not seeking to become a film 
maker in the United States. Moreover, the petitioner has only documented two payments received by the 
EAC 07 224 5 1635 
Page 14 
beneficiary and his partner for their work, which, taken together, are insufficient to establish that he has 
received a high level of remuneration. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. The record contains no evidence regarding the salaries the beneficiary has received as an architect 
during his employment with various architectural firms in Germany. The petitioner has not established that 
the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The evidence shows that the beneficiary is a skilled and experienced architect, who also has a growing 
reputation in the specialized field of visual reconstruction of historical sites. The beneficiary may have a 
unique skill set as a result of his work in the related field of visual reconstruction, but the fact that he has 
unusual knowledge or experience does not place him in the realm of an alien with extraordinary ability in 
architecture. Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary has extraordinary ability in architecture, which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, as required by section 101(a)(15)(0) of the Act. The petitioner submitted no evidence that 
the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award and the documentation submitted does 
not meet three of the eight other evidentiary criteria specified in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 
214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). Nor has the petitioner satisfied that the alternative requirement set forth at 8 C.F.R.5 
2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(C) is applicable. Consequently, the beneficiary is not eligible for nonimmigrant classification 
under section 101(a)(15)(0) of the Act and the petition must be denied. 
In order for the beneficiary to meet the requirements for this visa classification, the petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. Section 
101 (a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(0)(i); 8 C.F.R. 5 2 14.2(0)(3)(ii), (iii). Here, the petitioner 
has provided no evidence of any acclaim received by the beneficiary prior to 2005 and cannot demonstrate the 
requisite sustained claim. The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly 
restrictive. See 137 Cong. Rec. S18247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for 0-1 
classification, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is "at the very top" of his field of endeavor. 8 
C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(ii). Despite the recommendations and endorsements submitted, it must be concluded that the 
beneficiary's achievements have not yet risen to this level. The type of documentation demonstrating sustained 
national or international recognition of accomplishments necessary for 0- 1 classification has not been presented. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. €j 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.