dismissed O-1A Case: Education

(b)(6)
DATE: ·APR 0 2 2014 
INRE: Petition er: 
Benefici ary: 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homela nd Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative App eals Office (.AAO) 
20 Massachusells Ave. , N.W., IVIS 2090 
Washimrton. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigr ant Work er Pursuant to Secti on 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 Offic e (AAO) in your case . 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new fac ts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http: //ww w.uscis.gov /for ms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 . Do not file a motion directly with the AAO . 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Vermont Service Center Director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition and the matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner filed this petition see king 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 field of education. The petitioner, a public charter school, seeks to employ 
the beneficiary in the position of teacher for middle grade math for a period of three years. 
The director denied the petition , concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary has 
extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor, which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
intern ational acclaim and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. Specifically, the director determined that the evidence submitted did not satisfy the criteria 
set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) or at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's denial involves misinterpretation and 
misapplication of the law and facts, and that the evidence establishes the beneficiary's eligibility under at least 
three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o )(3)(iii)(B). The petitioner submits an appeal and additional 
evidence in support of the appeal. 
For the reasons discussed below , the AAO will uphold the director's decision and dismiss the appeal. 
I. The Law 
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 seek s to enter the 
United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability .... 
The regulation at 8 C.F.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) (comp aring and discussing the lower stand ard for the 
arts). 
In a policy memorandum , the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) emphasized: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
It must be remembered that the sta ndards for 0-1 aliens in the fields of business, education, 
athletics, and the sciences are extr emely 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-1B 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 Priz e; 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 member ship 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 th e 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; 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. USC/5, 596 F.3d 1115 
(91h 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 b eneficiary's eligibility as an alien with extraordinary ability. Cf 8 C.P.R. § 
204.5(h)(3). 
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 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)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also 
explained the "final merits determination " as the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only 
aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are 
eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
!d. at 1119-20. 
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), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9'h Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. 
DOJ , 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
In the present matter, the petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to several of the evidentiary criteria, but has 
not established that the beneficiary has risen to the very top of her field or that she has achieved sustained national 
or international acclaim. 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2( o )(3)(ii) and (iii). 
II. Discussion 
The sole issue to be addressed is whether the petitioner established that the beneficiary satisfies the evidentiary 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), or at least three of the six criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B). 
The beneficiary is a native and citizen of the Philippines who was last admitted to the United States in H-1B 
status as a secondary math teacher at The petitioner, an 
elementary and secondary public charter school, filed the Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 
seeking to employ the beneficiary as a math teacher for middle grades . The record consists of: the Form I-129 
petition and supporting evidence, the director's request for evidence and the petitioner's response; the director's 
decision; and the petitioner 's appeal and supporting evidence . 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.F.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 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
C.F.R. § 214 .2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The petitioner has claimed eligibility under alJ eight criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). 1 Each criterion will be discussed below. 
Docum entatio n of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor 
Under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(l), the petitioner submitted evidence establishing that the 
beneficiary has received numerous prizes or awards from the - , · · · 
_ ~ . _ , , In particular, the petitioner emphasized the 
beneficiary ' s award for Outstanding Science Teacher, Division Level, on May 22, 2004. 2 Other prizes or 
awards the beneficiary has received include: a Certificate of Appreciation for her nomination as a division 
entry to the regional search for the Most Outstanding Science Club Advisor in 2001; for 
Modules Prepared(fried Out at the Regional Science and Technology Day in 2006; Certificate of Recognition 
for Most Creative Teacher of the Science and Technology Department of 
in 1998; Certificate of Recognition for Supportive Teacher of the Science and Technology epartment of 
in 1998; and numerous awards recognizing the beneficiary as a 
coach/a dvisor for winning students at student science contests. 
With respect to the beneficiary 's award for Outstanding Science Teacher , Division Level, the petitioner 
submitted documentation from the 
at a national level, as well as at a department /regional level. 
from the 
program are given 
The petitioner also submitted documentation 
), indicating that the 
competition for the Outstanding Science Teacher award is made at three levels: school , division, and regional, 
with regional being the highest level. 
In the denial, the director determined that the awards or pnzes the beneficiary has received from the 
Philippines are regional awards, and do not rise to the level of national or 
international recognition. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the program is "a national program [that sets] the standards and 
criteria to qualify for the Outstanding Science Teacher Awards." The petitioner states: "Although they are 
given for each region but the criteria is national in scope. This being said, the Outstanding Science Teacher 
recognitions of [the beneficiary] is considered national lev el or scope [sic]." 
I Specifically, in the initial documentation, the petitioner claimed eligibility under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l) , (2), (4) , (5), (6), and (7). In response to the RFE , the petitioner claimed eligibility 
under all eight criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). On appeal, the petitioner claims eligibility 
under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J), (4), (7), and (8). 
2 The petitioner asserted that the beneficiary was also recognized as Outstanding Science Teac her on 
December 16, 2005, but submitted no identifiable evidence of this award. The AAO observes that the Jetter 
from I, states only 
that the beneficiary was adjudged the Division Winner for Outstanding Science Teacher in 2004. · 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director that the awards or prizes the beneficiary has received from 
the are regional in scope, and do not rise to the level of "nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards" as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(l). 
In particular, while certain awards under the program are awarded at the national level, the 
beneficiary 's award for Outstanding Science Teacher , Division Level , is a regional level award, in which she 
placed at the second highest level (division level). The petitioner submitted no evidence to establish that the 
beneficiary's award for Outstanding Science Teacher, Division Level, is recognized beyond the regional 
department which presented the award. Notably , the Jetter from 
Supervisor, Department of Educ ation, Region I, states that the beneficiary's award for Outstanding Science 
Teacher, Division Level, gave her "the chance to participate in the National Search for Outstanding Teachers 
like the ··_,.-, " The fact that a national award is given for Outstanding 
Teachers underscores the regional nature of the beneficiary's award for Outstanding Science Teacher, 
Division Level. While the AAO acknowledges that is a national program, the national scope of the 
overall oro!!ram does not equate to evidence that every department/regional level award or prize given under 
the program is "nationally or internationally recognized." 
The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary's other awards from the 
rise to the level of "nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards " as required by the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l). As such, the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l) has not been met. 
Docum entation 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. 
In the denial, the director determined that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 's memberships 
in the - o , _ ~~- ' - ., and the 
n - - · Advisors , among others, require outstanding achievements 
of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not contest or even address the director's finding with respect to the criterion at 
8 C.F .R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). Therefore, the AAO considers the petitioner 's claim of eligibility under 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2) to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th 
Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011 , 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) 
(the court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Publish ed 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 the denial, the director determined that the petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence meeting the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). Specifically , the director noted the petitioner's failure to 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
establish that the instructional materials the beneficiary constructed were published in professional or major 
trade journals. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not contest or even address the director's finding with respect to this criterion. 
Therefore , the AAO considers the petitioner 's claim of eligibility under 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o )(3)(iii)(B)(3) to be 
abandoned. !d. 
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 
As evidence under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4), the petitioner submitted evidence that the 
beneficiary was a panelist during the 2004 and 2005 Division Level Science Fair, Quiz and Sci-Dama, 
Elementary Level. In addition, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4) because she has been "sought out to consult , advise and act as a coach by fellow 
teachers." The petitioner elaborated that the beneficiary has mentored both students and colleagues in various 
settings and competitions, including the mentoring of her colleague 1n 
constructing instructional materials that won a division competition. The petitioner submitted evidence that 
the beneficiary was a Master Teacher I of the 
construction of instructional materials, including whose instructional 
materials won the division level of the Regional Science Quest and Festival. 
In the denial, the director determined that the evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility under the 
criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). With respect to the beneficiary's participation in school science 
fairs, the director determined that the beneficiary was not "evaluating the work of others in her field but rather 
the work of students." The director acknowledged the beneficiary's Master Teacher I designation, but 
determined that it was not evidence of outstanding accomplishments. 
On appeal, the petitioner emphasizes that the beneficiary has participated as a judge of the work of other 
teachers because she has been sought out to consult, advise, and act as a coach of other teachers. 
Upon review of the record , the AAO finds that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). Although the petitioner emphasizes the beneficiary's role as a mentor, 
advisor, and coach of other teachers, the AAO cannot conclude that the term "judge" includes informal 
instances of mentorship, consultation, and advice among colleagues. The petitioner provided no legal 
authority to support this broad interpretation of the term "judge ." As the petitioner does not contest or 
address the director's finding regarding the beneficiary ' s participation as a panelist in student science fairs on 
appeal, the AAO finds this particular claim to be abandoned. /d. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific) scholarly) or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field 
Under the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(5), the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary has 
significantly contributed to the field "by being a resource speaker, organizer , coordinator , director, facilitator 
or member of the working committee of several seminar workshops to help new educators learn new thrusts 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
and strategies in teaching and in laying the foundation for the future of young educators in the Philippines. " 
In addition, the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary's instructional materi als constitute original 
contributions to the field, including an Algebra 1 lesson plan module that was distributed to teachers in 
The director determined that the submitted evidence was insufficient to establish 
eligibility under this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not contest or even address the director's finding with respect to this criterion. 
Therefore, the AAO considers the petitioner's claim of eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5) to be 
abandoned. !d. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional journals, or 
other major media 
Under the criterion at 8 C.F.R . § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6), the petitiOner submitted copies of instructional 
materials the beneficiary has created and used by local school districts. In the denial, the director determined 
that these instructional materials do not constitute evidence of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
journals, major trade publications, or other major media. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not contest or even address the director 's finding with respect to this criterion. 
Therefore, the AAO considers the petitioner's claim of eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6) to be 
abandoned. !d. 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations 
and establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
Under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(7), the petitioner asserted that the beneficiary performed in 
an essential and critical role at , by elevating the school's 
standing in Algebra 1 in the District. The petitioner also asserted that the beneficiary " will continue to 
perform at such a level" with the petitioning school. The petitioner made no assertions regarding the 
beneficiary's capacity or role in any other organizations or establishments. 
In the denial , the director observed that the petitioner failed to establish how the beneficiary ' s development of 
lesson plans establishes that she has risen to a more critical or essential capacity than other teachers 
performing in the same field in other school districts. Furthermore, the director determined that the petitioner 
did not submit evidence establishing the beneficiary was employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation . 
On appeal, the petitioner emphasizes that the beneficiary "has been employed in a critical or essential capacity at 
an established organization that is considered as a low 
performing school." 
Based on the evidence in the record, the petitioner has failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility under 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). The plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7) requires 
the beneficiary to have been employed in a critical or essential capacity for "organizations and establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation (emphasis added). " The petitioner has conceded , and the evidence in the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
record affirms, that is a "low performing school." ln this light , the petitioner has not 
explained or established how ' can be considered an establishment with a "dist inguished 
reputation." Because the petitioner has failed to establish this element , the AAO need not reach the issue of 
whether the beneficiary 's role at was in a critical or essential capacity. 
The petitioner's speculation as to the beneficiary's future capacity for the petitioning school is insufficient to meet 
the plain language of the criterion, which requires evidence that the beneficiary "has been emp loyed in a critical 
or essential capacity for organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation (emphasis added)." 
Overall, the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under 8 C.F .R. § 214 .2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(7) . 
Evid ence 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 
Under the criterio n at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8), the petitioner initially asserted that the beneficiary ' s 
position as Mast er Teach er I "commands a high salary as compared to other teachers in the Philippines." The 
petitioner provided evidence that the beneficiary 's salary as Master Teacher I was PHP 169,176 . The 
petitioner has not asserted that its proffered wage to the beneficiary of $38,465 per year is high. 
In the denial , the director noted that PHP 169 ,176 equates to USD $3,926, and noted the petitioner 's failure to 
submit documentation esta blishing that the benefici ary' s salary is considered high. 
On appea l, the petitioner states that the beneficiary ' s salary of PHP 169,176 " is comparably high for teachers 
and even other occupations in the Philippines" and is "one of the highest" within the payroll of teachers at 
The petitioner asserts that the director erred by considering the 
beneficiary 's salary in U.S. standards, and asserts that " renumeration [sic] must be compared to others 
simil arly situated in the alien's home country and should not be analyzed on the international scale." In 
support of the app eal , the petiti oner submits a document fro m the Philippines Department of Budget and 
Management listi ng the 2006 salary of all personnel at This document 
reflects, with respect to teacher salaries at that the salary of the Head 
Teach er VI was the highest at PHP 190,092, follow ed by five Master Teachers II at PHP 179 ,328, thirteen 
Mast er Teachers I (including the beneficiary) at PHP 169,176, seven Head Teachers III at PHP 159,500, one 
Head Teacher I at PHP 142,044, thirty-seven Teach ers Ill at 134,004 , one Teacher II at PHP 124,420, and 
sixty-three Teachers I at PHP 119,268. 
Upon review of the record, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary 's salary of PHP 169,176 can be 
considered a high salary. While the petitioner submitted evidence establishing that the beneficiary 's salary of 
PHP 169,176 was above average compared to all teacher salaries at the 
petitioner provided no evidence to establish that the beneficiary's salary was considered high beyond this 
particular high school. Notably , the petitioner's salary at--~~-- - ___ ·was exce eded by 
the salaries of a Head Teac her VI and five Master Teac hers II. 
The petitioner asserted that PHP 169,176 is "co mparably high for teachers and eve n other occupations in the 
Philippines, " but provided no evidence of the average salary of teac hers and other occupations in the 
Philippines to corroborate its assertion. Going on record without supporting documentary evid ence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
158, 165 (Comm ' r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California , 14 I&N Dec . 190 (Reg. Comm'r 
1972)) . 
The AAO observes the evidence in the record reflecting that , by an 1978 executive order of the President of 
the Republic of Philippines, 15,000 Master Teacher I positions were initially created for elementary school 
teachers. For Master Teachers II, III, and IV positions for elementary schools, and all Master Teachers 
positions for secondary schools, an unidentified number of positions would be subsequently created. The 
evidence also reflects the four different levels of Master Teachers as Master Teacher I, II, III, and IV, in order 
of lowest to highest level. The evidence indicates that Master Teachers in each different level are 
compensated uniformly at a rate corresponding to the different levels of Principals I, II, III, and IV. 
Additionally, the AAO observes that the beneficiary's salary at was 
exceeded by a Head Teacher VI. Based on this evidence, the record suggests that the beneficiary's salary 
was, at the minimum , equal to the salaries of 15,000 other Master Teachers I in the country , and was exceeded 
by the salaries of all Master Teachers II, III, and IV, and all Head Teachers VI in the country. Thus, in the 
absence of other evidence, the record does not support the conclusion that the beneficiary's salary of PH.P 
169,176 received as Master Teacher I can be considered a high salary. 
Furthermore, the AAO observes the article "Literacy Training for Elementary Teachers Sought," published in 
~ ··- _ -- ~~ ~ ~ ····-~ , which discusses the " meager salary of schoolteachers" in the Philippines. This article 
undermines the petitioner's claim that the beneficiary's salary was " high" when compared to other 
occupations in the Philippines." 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 
214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(8). 
B. · Summary 
The petitioner has failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of a major , internationally recognized award , 
or that she 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). Therefore, the proper conclusion is that petitioner has failed to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence. 
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 
criteria found under the regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). Therefore, the AAO will not conduct a final 
merits determination. 3 
3 The AAO maintains de novo review. Soltane v. DOl, 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.P.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.P .R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I & N Dec. 458, 460 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Ill. Conclusion 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented teacher who has won the respect of her employers , 
colleagues, and students. The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to the level of an alien 
who has distinguished herself to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not 
persuasive that the beneficiary's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a 
national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act. The petition may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
(BIA 1987)(holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa 
petitions).