dismissed O-1A Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
inv- of fivacy 
PUBLLC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: SRC 06 039 50380 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: NAY 1 0 20& 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U. S.C. @ 1 1 0 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
11 Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 06 039 50380 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service Center, and is now 
before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is self-described as a "supplier for manufacturers in the automotive industry, mainly dealing with 
the German companies BMW, Mercedes Benz and their sub-contractors." The beneficiary is a personnel training 
manager. The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant, under section 10 1 (a)(l5)(0)(i) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an alien with extraordinary ability in business. 
The director denied the petition on January 23, 2006, finding that although the petitioner may be considered an 
asset to his current employer, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is one of a small percentage at 
the very top of his field of expertise. The petitioner submits a timely appeal, dated February 6,2006. 
Section 10 1 (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 through extensive documentation, and who seeks 
to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. 
The issue raised by the director in ths proceeding is whether the petitioner has shown that the beneficiary 
qualifies for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in business as defined by the statute and the 
regulations. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(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, that: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in thefields 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 national 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 
SRC 06 039 50380 
Page 3 
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 the 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 2 14.2(0)(5)(i)(A) requires, in pertinent part: 
Consultation with an appropriate U.S. peer group (which could include a person or persons with 
expertise in the field), labor and/or management organization regarding the nature of the work to be 
done and the alien's qualifications is mandatory before a petition for 0-1 or 0-2 classification can be 
approved. 
The record consists of a petition with supporting documentation, a request for additional documentation and the 
petitioner's reply, the director's decision, an appeal and letter supporting the appeal. There is no evidence that the 
beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award equivalent to that listed at 8 C.F.R. 9 
214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A). Further, the record does not demonstrate that the beneficiary has met at least three of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)@). 
For criterion number one, the petitioner submits certificates indicating that the beneficiary participated in 
three language immersion programs. Such certificates do not demonstrate that the beneficiary has received 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. 
For criterion number two, the record contains no evidence which demonstrates the beneficiary'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. 
For criterion number three, the record contains no evidence to establish that there has been published material 
in professional or major trade publications or major media about the beneficiary alien, relating to his work in 
the field for which classification is sought. 
SRC 06 039 50380 
Page 4 
For criterion number four, the record contains no evidence which documents the beneficiary'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. 
er five, the record contains several letters attesting to the value of the beneficiary's work. 
, Project Manager at the petitioning company, indicates that the beneficiary "has become an 
essential part of [the] team and our company," and that they "rely and depend on [him] every day." A letter 
fro- a teacher at Greenville County Public Schools, states that the beneficiary's "abilities 
and knowledge far surpass those of the average foreign language instructor," and that his "specific expertise 
would be difficult, if not impossible, to duplicate." The letters, however, do not indicate that the beneficiary's 
contributions were original and that they were of a major significance to his field of endeavor. 
For criterion number six, the record contains no evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the 
field, in professional journals, or other major media. 
For criterion number seven, the regulation clearly requires evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical 
or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation. In this instance, 
the petitioner failed to provide any evidence which establishes that it possesses a distinguished reputation. 
Further, although the petitioner asserts that the beneficiary is its "most essential communication interface between 
company contacts in Germany and the United States," we do not find the position held by the beneficiary, 
essentially the position of a language instructor, is considered employment in a "critical or essential capacity" as 
would be the position of director or president, for instance. 
For criterion number eight, although the Form 1-129 petition indicates that the beneficiary will earn an annual 
salary of $45,000 per year, the record contains no documentary evidence of the beneficiary's salary history or 
salary surveys to determine whether such a salary is considered high in comparison to others in the 
beneficiary's field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts it has submitted comparable evidence consisting of "letters from customers and 
people dealing with [the beneficiary who give] undeniable testimonials of the extraordinary abilities of [the 
beneficiary] and how those skills are not to be found in translators or instructors with the same qualifications." 
While it is true that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $214.2(0)(3)(iii)(C) permits "comparable evidence" where the 
eight criteria do not "readily apply" to the alien's occupation, the petitioner has not shown how these criteria doe 
not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation. Regardless, the regulation neither states nor implies that student 
evaluations or general letters regarding the beneficiary's slulls are "comparable" to the strict documentation 
requirements in the regulations setting forth the eight criteria. 
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 extraordinary ability, the 
statute requires evidence of "sustained national or international acclaim" and evidence that the alien's 
achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor through "extensive documentation." The 
petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's abilities have been so recognized. 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. $ 214.2(0)(3)(ii). The beneficiary's achievements have not yet risen to this level. 
SRC 06 039 50380 
Page 5 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 
1361. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.