dismissed O-1A Case: Refugee Support

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S. Department of Homeland 5ecurin
U.S.('iibeaship and Imrnigrmon
Adrninis1rathe Appeals(Hin
20 Massachuseits Ave . N.W •\h 0
Washinettin. lH .NH3...NM3
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: AUG 1 0 2012 Office: CALIFORNIASERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petitionfor a NonimmigrantWorkerPursuantto Section101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i)
ONBEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice that originally decidedyour case. Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
Thankyou
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,CaliforniaServiceCenter,deniedthe nommmigrantvisapetitionanddismissed
the petitioner'ssubsequentmotionto reopen. The matteris now beforethe AdministraüveAppealsOffice
(AAO)onappeal.TheAAOwill dismisstheappeal.
The petitionerfiled this petitionseekingto classifythe beneficiaryas an 0-1 nonimmigrantpursuantto
section101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct),8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i),asan
alienof extraordinaryability in the field of refugeesupport.The petitionerstatesthat it is a non-protit
religiousand humanrights organization.It seeksto employthe beneficiaryin the positionof refugee
integrationcoordinatorfor aperiodof oneyear.
The directordeniedthe petitionconcludingthat thepetitionerfailed to establishthat the beneficiaryhas
received"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"or todemonstratethatheis oneof thesmallpercemage
whohasrisento theverytopof hisfield of endeavor.Specifically,thedirectordeterminedthattheevidence
submitteddid notsatisfythecriteriasetforth at 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)or at leastthreeof theeight
criteriasetforthat8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B).
Thepetitionersubsequentlyfiledanappeal.Thedirectordeclinedto treattheappealasa motionandforwarded
theappealto theAAO. Onappeal,counselassertsthatthepetitioner'smotionwaswronghdenied.andthata
reviewof theevidencein itsentiretywill establishthatthebeneficiarymeetsthreeof theevidentiarycriteriaat8
C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B).Counselassertsthatthedirectorundervaluedthetestimonialevidencein therecord.
Specifically,counselemphasizesthatthedenialfailed to recognizetheinternationalnatureandacclairnassociated
with theM theoriginalcontributionsof majorsignificanceto the field of refugeesuppor1and
Eritreanhumanrights,andthatthebeneficiary'sauthorshipofabookentitled,M hasplacedhimatthe
topof hisfield,andthatthebeneficiaryisemployedin acriticalcapacity.
Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,theAAOwill upholdthedirector'sdecisionanddismisstheappeal.
L TheLaw
Section101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i),providesfor theclassificationof a qualified
alienwho:
hasextraordinaryability in thesciences,arts,education,business,or athleticswhichhasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednationalor internationalacclaim. . . andwhoseachievements
havebeenrecognizedin thefield throughextensivedocumentation,andseeksto enterthe
UnitedStatestocontinueworkin theareaof extraordinaryability . . . .
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii)defines,in pertinentpart:
Extraordinaryability in thefield of science,education,business,or athleticsmeansa levelof
expertiseindicatingthatthepersonis oneof thesmallpercentagewhohavearisento thevery
topof thefieldof endeavor.
Page3
Theextraordinaryabilityprovisionsof thisvisaclassificationareintendedto behighlyrestrictiveforaliensin
the fields of business,education,athletics,andthe sciences.See59 FR 41818, 41819 (August 15. 1994); 137
Cong.Rec.S18242,18247(daily ed.,Nov. 26, 1991)(comparinganddiscussingthe lower standardfor the
arts).
In apolicy memorandum,thelegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService(INS) emphasized:
It mustbe rememberedthatthe standardsfor 0-1 aliensin the fields of business,education,
athletics,andthesciencesareextremelyhigh. The0-1 classificationshouldbereservedonly for
thosealiens who have reachedthe very top of their occupationor profession.The 0-1
classification is substantially higher than the old H-1B prominent standard.Officers involved in
the adjudication of thesepetitions should not "water down" the classification by approving O-l
petitionsforprominentaliens.
Memorandum,LawrenceWeinig, Acting Asst.Comm'r.,INS, "Policy Guidelinesfor theAdjudicationof O
andP Petitions"(June25, 1992).
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)states,inpertinentpart:
Evidentiary criteria for an 0~1 alien of extraordinary ability in thefields of science,education,
business,or athletics. An alienof extraordinaryability in the fieldsof science,education,
business,or athletics must demonstratesustainednational or internationalacclaim and
recognitionforachievementsin thefieldof expertisebyprovidingevidenceof:
(A) Receiptof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward,suchastheNobelPrize;or
(B) At leastthreeof thefollowingformsof documentation:
(1) Documentationof the alien'sreceipt of nationally or internationally recognized
prizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor;
(2) Documentationof the alien'smembershipin associationsin the fiekt for which
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their
members,asjudgedby recognizedor internationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesor
fields;
(3) Publishedmaterialin professionalor majortradepublicationsor majormedia
aboutthealien,relatingto thealien'sworkin thefieldfor whichclassificationis
sought,whichshallincludethetitle,date,andauthorof suchpublishedmaterial,
andanynecessarytranslation;
Page4
(4) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipationon a panel,or individuallyasajudgeof the
work of othersin thesameor in analliedfield of specializationto thatfor which
classificationissought;
(5) Evidenceof the alien's original scientific, scholarly,or busincss-related
contributionsof majorsignificancein thefield;
(6) Evidenceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield,inprofessional
journals,orothermajormedia;
(7) Evidencethatthealienhasbeenemployedin a criticalor essentialcapacityfor
organizationsandestablishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation;
(8) Evidencethatalienhaseithercommandeda highsalaryor will commanda high
salaryorotherremunerationfor services,evidencedbycontractsor otherreliable
evidence.
(C) If the criteriain paragraph(o)(3)(iii) of this sectiondo not readHyapply to the
beneficiary'soccupation,thepetitionermaysubmitcomparableevidencein orderto
establishthebeneficiary'seligibility.
Additionally,theregulationat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(2)(iii)provides:
TheevidencesubmittedwithanOpetitionshallconformtothefollowing:
(A) Affidavits,contracts,awards,andsimilardocumentationmustreflectthenatureof the
alien'sachievementandbeexecutedbyanofficeror responsiblepersonemployedbythe
institution,firm,establishment,ororganizationwheretheworkwasperformed.
(B) Affidavits written by presentor former employersor recognizedexpertscertifying to the
recognitionandextraordinaryability . . . shall specificallydescribethe alien'srecognition
andability or achievementin factualtermsandsetforth theexpertiseof theaffiant andthe
mannerinwhichtheaffiantacquiredsuchinformation.
Thedecisionof U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)in a particularcaseis dependentuponthe
qualityof theevidencesubmittedby thepetitioner,notjust thequantityof theevidence.Themerefactthatthe
petitionerhassubmittedevidencerelatingto threeof the criteriaas requiredby the regulationdoesnot
necessarilyestablishthatthealieniseligiblefor O-1classification.59FedRegat41820.
TheAAOwill utilizeatwo-partapproachwheretheevidenceis firstcountedandthen,if qualifyingunderatleast
threecriteria,consideredin thecontextof afinalmeritsdetermination.TheAAO findsthistwopartapproachto
be appropriatefor evaluatingthe regulatorycriteriaset forth for O-1 nonimmigrantpetitionsfor aliensof
Pagc5
extraordinaryability at 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii),(iv) and(v). SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,
229F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),aff'd,345F.3d683(9'"Cir. 2003);seealsoSoltanev.DOL 38I
F.3d143,145(3dCir.2004)(notingthattheAAO conductsappellatereviewonadenovobasis).
In the presentmatter,thepetitioner hassubmittedevidencepertainingto five of the evidentiarvcriteria, but has
notestablishedthatthebeneficiaryhasrisentotheverytopof hisfieldor thathehasachievedsustainednational
orinternationalacclaim.8C.F.R.§§214.2(o)(3)(ii)and(iii).
II. Discussion
Thepetitionerfiled the FormI-129,Petitionfor a NonimmigrantWorker,on June22, 2011.Thepetitioner
describesits businessactivitiesandthebeneficiary'sproposedpositionas"Refugeeintegrationcoordinator"as
follows.
[Thepetitioner]will providesocial,economicandeducationalservicestotheinnercityresidents
of Phoenixandassistwithresettlingof refugees.
Therecordconsistsof: theFormI-129petitionandsupportingevidence,thedirector'srequestforevidencedated
July22,2011andthepetitioner'sresponse;thedirector'sdecisiondatedDecember14,2011;thepetitioner's
appealTheAAOhasreviewedtheevidenceof recordin itsentiretyin reachingitsdecision.
A. TheBeneficiary'sEligibility undertheRegulatoryCriteria
If thepetitionerestablishesthroughthesubmissionof documentaryevidencethatthebeneficiaryhasreceived
a major,internationallyrecognizedawardpursuantto 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A),thenit will meetits
burdenof proofwith respectto thebeneficiary'seligibility for 0-1 classification.Theregulationsciteto the
NobelPrizeasanexampleof a majoraward.Id. Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimthatthebeneficiarycanmeet
thiscriterion.
As thereis no evidencethat the beneficiaryhasreceiveda major,internationallyrecognizedaward,the
petitionermustestablishthebeneficiary'seligibility underat leastthreeof theeightcriteriasetforth at 8
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The petitioner hassatisfied the criteria at 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). The
petitioner hassubmittedevidencerelating to the criteria at 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1), (5), (6), and (7).
The petitioner hasnot submittedany evidencerelating to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2h (J),
and(8), andraisesno objectionto thedirector'sdeterminationthatthesecriteriahavenot beenmet. The
remainingfive criteriawill bediscussedbelow.
Documentationof thealien'sreceiptof nationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizesor awards
for excellencein thefield ofendeavor
Tomeetcriterionnumberone,thepetitionermustsubmitdocumentationof thealien'sreceipiof nationallyor
internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefieldof endeavor.8 C.F.R.
§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1).
Page6
The petitioner statesthat thebeneficiary qualifies for this criterion dueto his receiptof the in
2008. At thetimeof filing, thepetitionerfailedto submitevidencedescribingthe or howil
qualifies asa nationally or internationally recognizedprize or award for excellencein the field of endeavor.
Onappeal,thepetitionersubmitsastatementsignedby thebeneficiaryi.nwhichhedescribesthe
Thebeneficiarystates:
TheM is aCommunityCollegeprizeawardedto apersonorpersonswhohave
showncivil courage.The in Swedenwhichawardstheprize
makesitsselectionbasedonthefollowingdefinitionof courage."Whenaperson.drivenby
her/herheartandconscience,hasthecourageto standupagainstthegroup'sunwrittenlaws
or forcesorwrittenlaws,andispreparedto facetheconsequencesof his/heractions,he/she
demonstratesmoralcourage,acharacteristicthatisbothuniversalanduniquelyhuman.
The petitioner goes on to state that the 2012 prize was awarded for the fifth time and that anyone can be
nominated. The winning candidateis chosenby a jury composedof the principal of the school a
representativeof theBoard,twoteachersandtwostudents.
At thetimeof filing, thepetitionerprovideda copyof a letterdatedAugust28,2006whichwasapparently
submittedin supportof a previouspetitionfiled on behalfof thebeneficiary.Thepetitioneraddressedthe
evidentiarycriteriaat8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B),butdidnotclaimthatthebeneficiarymeetsIhiscriterion.
Whilethepetitionerhasprovidedevidenceof thebeneficiary'sreceiptof this award,thepetitionerhasnot
explainedhowthisawardis considereda nationallyor internationallyrecognizedawardor prize. TheAAO
notesthatthebeneficiaryshouldbecommendedfor hisreceiptof thisaward,however,thepetitionerhasnot
demonstratedthat the prize is known outsideof the communitycollegein Sweden. Furthermore,the
beneficiary'sreceiptof theprizeoffersnomeaningfulcomparisonbetweenhimandexperiencedprofessionals
in thefield who havelong sincecompletedtheir educationaltraining. Further,theplain languageof the
regulatorycriterion at 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(1)specificallyrequiresthat the awardshe nationallyor
internationallyrecognizedin thefield of endeavorandit is thepetitioner'sburdento establisheveryelement
of this criterion.The petitionerhas not providedany documentation,asidefrom the statementof the
beneficiary,explainingthe significanceof this award,and thusthereis no evidencedemonstratingthat the
beneficiary'sawardis tantamountto a nationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizeor awardfor execHence
in thebeneficiary'sfieldof endeavor.
For the reasonsstatedabove,the petitioner hasnot submittedevidencethat meetsthis criterion.
Evidenceof the alien's original scientific,scholarly, or business-relatedcontributionsof major
significancein thefield
Thepetitionersubmittedsevenlettersof supportfromthebeneficiary'seligibility for thiscriterion. Wecite
representativeexampleshere.
Page7
At thetimeof filing, thepetitionersubmitteda letterdatedJune17,2011from , theco-chairof
theEritreanRefugeeInitiative (ERI), anoutreachministryof thepetitioner. states:
In 2010 [the beneficiary]graduatedwith a master'sdegreein HumanRights and Social
Justice.Histhesison forcedconscriptionis nowusedby Eritreanasylumseekers.With his
encouragement,membersof [the petitioner]formedERI which providesEnglishclasses,
beadto succeedcottageindustryandmentoring.[Thebeneficiary]formsthebridgebetween
our othervolunteersandhis countrymenandwomen. He took it uponhimselfto take
interpretertrainingat the IRC so he could do a professionaljob of helpingrefugeesin
situationswheretheyencounteredlanguagebarriersandculturaldifferences. . . It is my firm
beliefthatERIcannotcontinuethelevelof goodwork we do to helptheErizreanrefugees
feelwelcomeandlearnto live in thePhoenixareawithout[thebeneficiary's]participation.
The petitionersubmitteda letter from co-chairof the ERI. statesthat the
beneficiary"is intimatelyfamiliarwith thepersonal,legal,professional,financial,andsocialchallengesof the
refugees;heis fluentin severalof theirlanguages;heknowstheirhomecountriesandsocieties;heknowsour
organizationandwhatwecanbestdoto assisttherefugees;andhishumanrightsbackgroundandworkwith
a localrefugeeorganizationhaveput him in contactwith a widevarietyof sourcesandresourcesvaluable
bothto usandto therefugees."
The petitioner also submitted a letter from , AssociateProfessorof Political Science,
ArizonaStateUniversity. states:
[Thebeneficiary]hasgarneredquitea reputationin thePhoenixcommunity. For instance.
while workingwith attorneysfrom theFlorenceProjecton otherissues,I learnedthatthey
routinelyincludehis mastersthesisaspartof theirdocumentationfor Eritreanasylumand
CAT cases,andtheyhavefoundit to bethemostthoroughandinsightfultreatmentof the
country'sconditions.
In the request for evidence, the director noted that the petitioner's evidence failed to establish that the
beneficiary hasmadeanoriginal business-relatedcontribution of major significance in this field. The director
determined that the evidence submitted was insufficient to satisfy the criterion at 8 CFA §
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5).
In supportof its subsequentmotion,thepetitionersubmittedthreeadditionaltestimonialswhichareclaimed
to meettherequirementsat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5).Thepetitionersubmitteda letterfrom
arepresentativeof thepetitioner. states:
[Thebeneficiary]maynot havea NobelPrize,but hehasproventhathehasextraordinary
abilityto riseto thetopwhereverhefindshimself.Bornin avillageof athirdworldcountry,
he servedhis country in their fights for independence,achievedthe highestscoresin
secondaryschool,becameStudentPresidentof wherehe alsoexcelled
Page8
and earneda law degree,stoodup to a repressivegovernment,surviveda year in solitary
confinement,convincedaguardto helphimescape,continuedhisadvocacyfor rightsamong
Eritreanrefugeesandmadethe mostof his experiencesin Phoenix. He is an expertin
EritreanHumanRightsandRefugeeResettlement.
Thepetitioneralsoprovidedaletterfrom JSDCandidateat NotreDameLawSchoot
statesthathehasknownthebeneficiarypersonallyandprofessionallyfor manyyears.
Withrespectto thebeneficiary'scredentials,hestates:
I understand[thebeneficiary]is beingaskedto demonstrateextraordinaryability,andfroma
slightly differentperspective,he is not far from this standard. He is one of the highly
educatedEritreansuniquelysuitedfor theresettlementwork hehasbeendoing. He hasan
LLB degreein law andsocialjusticeandhumanrights. He knowsEritrea,Ethiopiaand
Sudan.Hesharestherefugeeexperience.
[The beneficiary] may not have contributed something intellectually extra-ordinary.
However,giventhecircumstancesof hislife in thelast10years,hehasaccomplishedagreat
deal.
Thedeclarantdoesnot indicatethecapacityin which he hasworkedwith the beneficiaryor provideany
detailedexamplesof howthebeneficiary'sworkisoriginalandof majorsignificance.
Thepetitionersubmittedathirdletterfrom whostates:
Beyondthe incredibletechnicalassistance[the beneficiary]hasbeenableto provide,the
uniquecontributionhe makesis throughhis exceptionalculturalcapacity. His ability to
navigateculturalmisunderstandingandexpectationswith theutmostrespectandcandidness
enableshimto makeapositiveimpactaboveandbeyondthestandard.
Upon review, theprecedinglettersof recommendationdemonstratethat the beneficiary's work hasearnedthe
respect and admiration of those with whom he has collaborated and consulted, but these letters do not
establishthat hehasmadeoriginal business-relatedcontributions of major significance in his field.
Accordingto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5),an alien'scontributionsmustbe not only
original but of majorsignificance. Wemustpresumethat the phrase"major significance"is not superhuous
and,thus,thatit hassomemeaning.Whilethepetitioneris admiredandcommendedfor hisskillsin thefield
of refugeeintegration,therecordlacksspecificexamplesanddocumentationof howthebeneficiary'sworkis
of majorsignificance.Forexample,therecorddoesnot indicatetheextentof thepetitioner'sinfluenceon
othersin his field nationallyor internationally,nor doesit showthatthefield hassomehowchangedasa
resultof hiswork.
Page9
In this case,the lettersof recommendationsubmittedby the petitioner are not sufficient to meetthis criterion.
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstoneof a successlul
extraordinaryability claim. USCISmay,in its discretion,useasadvisoryopinionsstatementssubminedas
experttestimony. SeeMatter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However,
USCISis ultimatelyresponsiblefor makingthe final determinationregardingan alien'seligibility for the
benefitsought. Id. The submissionof lettersfrom expertssupportingthe petitionis not presumptive
evidenceof eligibility; USCIS may evaluatethe contentof thoselettersasto whetherthey support the alien's
eligibility. Seeid. at 795. Thus,thecontentof theexperts'statementsandhowtheybecameawareof the
petitioner'sreputationareimportantconsiderations.Evenwhenwrittenbyindependentexperts,letterssolicited
byanalienin supportof animmigrationpetitionareof lessweightthanpreexisting,independentevidenceof
originalcontributionsof majorsignificancethatonewouldexpectof a businessexecutivewhohassustained
nationalor internationalacclaim.Withoutextensivedocumentationshowingthatthebeneficiary'sworkhas
beenunusuallyinfluential,highly acclaimedthroughouthis field, or hasotherwiserisento the level of
originalcontributionsof majorsignificance,wecannotconcludethathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceofthealien'sauthorshipofscholarlyarticlesin thefield, inprofessionalor major
tradepublications or other major media
Therecordindicatesthatthebeneficiaryis theauthorof a bookentitledM' alongwith a graduate
thesiswhichdocumentstheprotestsof AsmaraUniversitystudents,thebanningof theprivatepressin Eritrea
and the resultingfinal ruling rendered. The book is co-authoredby of the University of
Orebroin Sweden.The etitionerindicatesthatthebeneficiary'sbookhasbeenreferencedmultipletimesin a
book entitled,* The directorconcludedthat the petitionerfailed to submit
evidencethatthisbookis consideredaprofessionaljournalor othermajormedia.Thedirectornotedthatthe
beneficiarydid notsubmitevidenceof otherm ublicationsor majormediathatcitehiswork. Beyondthe
factthatthebookwascitedin andthefactthatit isavailableatseverallibrariesin
Sweden,thepetitionerhasnot submittedanyotherevidencethatthebeneficiary'swork hasreceivednationalor
internationalacclaim.
On appeal, the petitioner submits statement indicating that "The Ruling" has been published worldwide and
continues to be cited as a source for major media publications. However, the petitioner does not submit any
evidencesupportinghis statement.Theonly evidencesubmittedon appealconsistsof a Googlesearchwith
cites in
Therefore,weagreewith thefindingsof thedirectorthattheevidencefails to satisfytheplainlanguageof the
regulatorycriterionat8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6).
Evidencethat the alien has beenemployedin a critical or essentialcapacityfor organizations
andestablishmentsthat havea distinguishedreputation
The directordeterminedthat the petitionerdid not submitevidenceto satisfythe criterionat 8 C.F.R.
§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7).
Page10
Thepetitionerassertsthatthebeneficiaryhasservedin acriticaloressentialroleasanadvisorto the
alongwith aSocialServiceSupervisorfor the a
non-profitorganization.
In supportof this criterion,the petitionerhassubmittedseverallettersattestingto thebeneficiary'srole in
refugeeresettlement,outreachandculturalassimilation.TheAAO findsthatthepetitionerhasdemonstrated
thatthebeneficiarydoesservein a critical role for thepetitioner. However,the recorddoesnot contain
evidencethatthepetitioneror the havea distinguishedreputation
in thefield. TheAAO doesnotmeanto diminishtherefugeeworkor theimpactthattht
anoutreachministryof thepetitioner,hason therefugeecommunity.However,therecord
does not contain evidencethat the petitionerhas a distinguishedreputationas contemplatedby the
regulations. Furthermore,the recorddoesnot containevidencethat the beneficiary'sprior employer.
hasadistinguishedreputation.
Thus,in thiscase,weconcurwith thedirector'sdeterminationthatthepetitionerhasfailedto demonstralethe
beneficiary'sreceiptof a major,internationallyrecognizedaward,or thathemeetsat leastthreeof theeight
categoriesof evidencethatmustbesatisfiedto establishtheminimumeligibility requirementsnecessaryto
qualifyasanalienof extraordinaryability. 8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii).
H. Conclusion
Reviewof therecorddoesnotestablishthatthebeneficiaryhasdistinguishedhimselftosuchanextentthathe
maybesaidto haveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimor to bewithin thesmallpercentage
at the very top of his field. The evidenceis not persuasivethat the beneficiary'sachievementsset him
significantlyabovealmostall othersin hisfield at a nationalor internationallevel. Therefore,thepetitioner
hasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theAct andthepetitionmaynot be
approved.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibilityfor thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner.Section291of theAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thatburdenhasnotbeenmet.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.