dismissed O-1A Case: Business

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly u~warranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Room 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
FILE: WAC 07 800 12235 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 FEB 09 2009 
PETITION: 
 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker under Section 10l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(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. 9 103.5 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 
dministrative Appeals Office 
WAC 07 800 12235 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center denied the nonimrnigrant visa petition, and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner filed this petition seeking to classifi the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimrnigrant pursuant to section 
101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an alien with extraordmry ability in 
business. The petitioner, a mortgage bank, seeks to employ the beneficiary as an executivelmanager. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish through the submission of extensive 
documentation that the beneficiary has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and recognition for 
achievements in his field. In denying the petition, the director found that the petitioner had not clearly indicated 
what it considers to be the beneficiary's field of endeavor. The director concluded that the petitioner had failed to 
show that the beneficiary had achieved the required acclaim and recognition in any one area of endeavor. 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO for review. On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner can establish 
that the beneficiary meets six of the eight evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. $4 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B) and (C). 
Counsel states that the beneficiary "has held key positions within the world of graphic design," and "possesses 
skills not normally found in the workplace." 
Section 10 1 (a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified alien who has extraordmry 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 extraordmary 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 her field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. §214.2(0)(3)(ii). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(ii) states, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the Jields 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. 8 214.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentia~ criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in thejelds of science, education, 
business or athletics. An alien of extraordmry 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: 
WAC 07 800 12235 
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. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(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. 
' WAC 07 800 12235 
Page 4 
(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. 
It is noted that the decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a given 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 satisfies the criteria and is eligible for 0-1 classification. The evidence 
submitted must establish that the beneficiary qualifies as an alien of extraordmuy ability. See 59 Fed. Reg. 
41818-01,41820. 
The record consists of a petition with supporting documentation, a request for additional evidence (RFE) and the 
petitioner's reply, the director's decision, an appeal and an appellate brief. The beneficiary in this case is a native 
and citizen of Venezuela, who, according to his resume, has worked in advertisinglmarketing, as a sales 
representative, as a graphic designer, and as an art department manager for various employers since 1999. The 
beneficiary's resume indicates that he has associate degrees in the fields of graphic design and advertising. 
In denying the petition, the director found that while the beneficiary appears to have professional experience 
in various areas, including graphic design, advertising, and the mortgage banking industry, the evidence of 
record does not show that he has achieved the requisite national or international acclaim and recognition in 
any one area of endeavor. The director found that the evidence submitted failed to meet the criteria set forth at 
8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), (B) or (C). The director also determined that the petitioner did not clearly 
identify the beneficiary's claimed area of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner established that the beneficiary meets at least 
five of the eight evidentiary criteria for 0-1 classification as outlined at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B), and 
also submitted other comparable evidence establishing his eligibility. The petitioner submits additional 
documentary evidence on appeal in support of its claims. 
Upon review and for the reasons discussed herein, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is fully 
qualified as an alien with extraordmary ability in business. 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received a 
major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel prize, 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. Here, the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, 
nor has the petitioner claimed 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. 
§ 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
WAC 07 800 12235 
Page 5 
In order 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.F.R. 
214.2(0)(3)(iii)(l). The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion, and the AAO can find 
no evidence in the record of such awards or prizes. 
In order to establish that the beneficiary meets the second criterion, at 8 C.F.R. $ 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. Again, the petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary is a member of such 
an organization, and the record contains no evidence indicating that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
To meet the third criterion, the petitioner must 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 8 
C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(3). On appeal, the counsel and the petitioner assert that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion, but does not further elaborate or identify what specific evidence satisfies this requirement. The 
evidence submitted on appeal includes the May 1999 issue of Sambil La Revista, a Spanish-language 
Venezuelan magazine. While it appears that this magazine is likely a major, national publication, the 
petitioner did not indicate where in this magazine one would find an article about the beneficiary, nor did it 
provide an English translation of any part of the magazine. Because the petitioner failed to submit certified 
translations of the documents, 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. Furthermore, the AAO notes that as of 1999, the beneficiary was working for an 
advertising agency as an intern, thus raising questions as to whether the submitted magazine actually contains 
an article about the beneficiary, relating to his work in the field. 
To meet the fourth criterion, the petitioner must submit evidence of 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. 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(4). Counsel and the petitioner assert on appeal that the 
petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's "service as the judge of the work of others in the same 
field," but again, no further explanation is provided and the AAO can find no evidence in the record that 
supports this claim. 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. 158, 165 (Cornrn. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The fifth criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of the beneficiary's original scientific, scholarly, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. $ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(5). The 
petitioner claims that the beneficiary has made "original scholarly research contributions to the field of 
advertising and graphic design." Once again, the petitioner has not elaborated as to what constitutes the 
beneficiary's original contribution. The petitioner has submitted a few documents which are presumably 
examples of the beneficiary's graphic design work, but there is no basis for a conclusion that this work 
represents a contribution of major significance to the field. The documents submitted appear to be standard 
WAC 07 800 12235 
Page 6 
promotional marketing materials similar to what any person in the beneficiary's profession would be expected 
to produce for their clients. 
The petitioner has submitted complimentary letters from various individuals who claim to know the 
beneficiary and to be familiar with his work. Several of the persons who provided letters mentioned the 
beneficiary's understanding of various cultures and his use of design in creating effective marketing and 
advertising campaigns. However, none of the testimonials submitted indicate that the beneficiary has been 
recognized for an original contribution of major significance in his field of endeavor. The petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The sixth criterion requires the petitioner to establish that the beneficiary has authored scholarly articles in the 
field, whtch appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. 8 
2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)@)(@. Again, counsel claims that the beneficiary has authored such articles "in the academic field 
of advertising and graphic design," yet the record contains no documentary evidence of such achievements. 
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). Therefore, the petitioner has not established 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)@)(7). The petitioner has submitted a resume for the beneficiary which lists his 
employment history and includes the names of his employers and brief descriptions of the duties he performed for 
each employer as an advertisinglmarketing specialist, graphic designer, sales representative, mphic desimer and 
art department manager. Only one of the beneficiary's former employers, 
(JOK), has submitted a reference letter on his behalf. - of JOK mentions that the beneficiary 
"is a serious Venezuelan Graphic Designer with extensive exposure and experience," and she notes his "unique 
understanding and sensitivity to other cultures," his "deep understanding of his own culture," and his "use and 
concept of design in creating effective marketing and advertising campaigns." She makes no specific reference to 
the beneficiary's employment capacity with the organization, nor does she provide any background information 
or documentation regarding the company, such that it could be determined that it is an organization with a 
distinguished reputation. This letter and the beneficiary's resume are insufficient to establish that the beneficiary 
has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations with a distinguished reputation, 
notwithstanding the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary can satisfy this criterion. The petitioner has not 
adequately documented the beneficiary's employment history or the distinguished stature of the organizations 
which have employed him in the past. Again, 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. 
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. 8 2 14.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(8). The petitioner has not documented the beneficiary's previous or current salaries 
WAC 07 800 12235 
Page 7 
or remunerations, nor has it claimed that his offered annual salary of $65,000 should be considered a "high salary" 
for the position offered in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Finally, the regulations allow the petitioner to submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility if the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B) do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation. The 
petitioner has not established that the above-referenced criteria cannot readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation. Rather, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary can meet at least five of the eight criteria. 
Nevertheless, the petitioner claims that it has submitted "other evidence" of the beneficiary's eligibility in the 
form of letters of reference £rom respected members of the beneficiary's profession. The majority of these letters 
appear to have been solicited in connection with a separate nonirnmigrant visa petition and many are identical in 
content, which raises questions as to who actually authored the letters, and diminishes their probative value. The 
letters in question indude: a letter dated November 10,2005 from om, athe above- 
referenced letter from and a letter dated November 9, 
2005 fiom . All of the witnesses refer to the beneficiary's employment 
offer from " and state that the beneficiary's "resume and portfolio are evidence of 
his work dedication and recognition received by various organizations." None of them mention any specific 
or achievement received by the beneficiary. On appeal, the petitioner offers an updated letter from 
hich has essentially the same content, and a letter dated February 8, 2008 from- 
who states that he is an editor and journalist who has received professional benefits fiom the beneficiary's 
services. 
who states that he is familiar with the beneficiary's work in the areas of mortgage loans and marketingladvertising 
for the Hispanic community. states that the beneficiary has the expertise and leadership needed in 
the areas of marketing and graphic design and would be an asset to the petitioning organization. Notably, none of 
the witnesses providing letters have indicated that the beneficiary has achieved national or international 
recognition in his field, identified him as an individual of extraordmuy ability, or suggested that he has risen to 
the very top of his profession. Rather, they acknowledge that he's a skilled graphic designer who specializes in 
marketing and advertising for the Hispanic community. 
Whether one relies on the standard regulatory criteria or on comparable evidence, the petitioner must show 
that the beneficiary has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. Section 
101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i); 8 C.F.R. S, 214.2(0)(3)(ii), (iii). None of the 
available documentary evidence submitted, including the witness letters, suggests that the beneficiary is an 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim in his field. The petitioner has not provided any 
unsolicited materials reflecting his acclaim or recognition in the field. 
As noted above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(0)(2)(iii) provides that affidavits written by present or former 
employers or recognized experts certifying to the recognition and extraordmry ability shall specifically describe 
the alien's recognition and ability or achievement in factual terms. While the persons providing testimonials are 
complimentary of the beneficiary's skills, they fail to establish how his abilities are nationally or internationally 
WAC 07 800 12235 
Page 8 
recognized, nor do they identify his achievements in the field beyond successllly carrying out his job duties as a 
graphic designer. 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has 
extraordinary ability in business, which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and 
that her 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. §214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B). Nor has the petitioner satisfied that 
the alternative requirement set forth at 8 C.F.R.5 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(C) is applicable. Consequently, the beneficiary 
is not eligible for nonirnmigrant classification under section 101(a)(15)(0) of the Act and the petition must be 
denied. 
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. As noted by the director, the type of sustained national or international recognition of 
accomplishments necessary for 0-1 classification has not been presented. 
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, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.