dismissed EB-1A Case: Aeromodelling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24017952 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 3, 2023 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a competitive aircraft model pilot, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability . Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C . § 1153(b)(l)(A). This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record does not 
establish the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the 10 initial evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was erroneous and that he has established eligibility for 
the requested classification. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] 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, 
(ii) the [noncitizen] seeks to enterthe United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [noncitizen]'s entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this evidence, then they 
must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the 10 categories listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5 (h)(3 )(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, 
and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir.2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3); therefore, he must satisfy at least 
three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner asserted that 
he satisfied the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(iv); however, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner satisfies only the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts 
that he satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(iii) in addition to the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The Petitioner does not assert, and the record does not support the 
conclusion, that he satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)-(x). After reviewing the record in 
its entirety, we conclude that it does not demonstrate that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of 
at least three criteria, for the reasons discussed below. 
Documentation ofthe [noncitizen 's] membership in associations in the field for which 
classffication is sought. which require outstanding achievements of their members. as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The record contains a copy of the Petitioner's identification card from the Ministry of Youth and 
Sports of Ukraine, written in a language other than English, and a certified English translation of it. 
The translation of the identification card indicates that the Petitioner bears the title of Master of Sports 
of Ukraine in Aeromodelling. The Petitioner asserts that this satisfies 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner asserted that the Ministry of 
Youth and Sports of Ukraine awards the title of Master of Sports of Ukraine "to athletes ... for 
compliance with qualification rules and requirements to the relevant sport, approved in the manner 
prescribed by law, provided that there are three judges of national or international category in the panel 
of judges at all-Ukrainian competitions." The Petitioner also submitted a certificate from the 
Ukrainian Federation of Aeromodelling and Dron [sic] Sport in response to the RFE, indicating that 
the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Ukraine awarded the Petitioner the title of Master of Sports of 
Ukraine for finishing in first place at the 2017 Championship of Ukraine. The certificate further 
indicates that the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Ukraine is part of the Cabinet of Ministers of 
Ukraine. The certificate is supplemented with a copy of Appendix 1 to Qualification Norms and 
Requirements of the Ukrainian Unified Sports Classification of Non-Olympic Sports, specifically 
2 
aeromodelling sports, from the Ukrainian Federation of Aeromodelling, and a certified English 
translation of it. The appendix provides criteria for participation in junior and adult competitions, and 
it further indicates that certain performance results, such as" 1-3 at the Championship of Ukraine" or 
setting a national record in certain competitions are qualification criteria for the title of Master of 
Sports of Ukraine. 
The Director concluded thatthe evidence regarding the Petitioner's title of Master of Sp01is of Ukraine 
does not establish that he is a member in an association in the field that requires outstanding 
achievements of their members, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h )(3 )(ii). Specifically, the Director 
found that the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Ukraine is a governmental body, not an association in 
the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asse1is that "[t]he title 'Master of Sp01is of Ukraine' ... is not easy to earn. 
One of the conditions for it to be awarded is that the applicant must participate in the competition, 
where the refereeing will be at least three judges with the international category." The Petitioner 
further asserts on appeal that the appendix submitted with the Petitioner's certificate in response to the 
Director's RFE establishes that there is "a clear list of qualifications a member must satisfy to become 
a Master of Sports of Ukraine" and that "there is a paiiicularprocedure implemented by the recognized 
international experts to evaluate evidence provided to prove those qualifications." The Petitioner 
alternately refers to the title of Master of Sports of Ukraine as "the status of Master of Sports." 
Although the record establishes that the Petitioner holds the title, or status, of Master of Sports of 
Ukraine issued by a governmental body, the record does not establish that such titleholders or status 
bearers are members of any particular association. Because the record does not address any particular 
association, it does not establish that the Petitioner is a member of an association in the field for which 
classification is sought. Therefore, the record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Published material a bout the [ noncitizen] in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media, relating to the [non citizen's] work in the field for which 
classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date. and author of the 
material. and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The record contains copies of three blog posts about the Petitioner, written in a language other than 
English, and certified English translations of them. In the RFE, the Director informed the Petitioner 
that the record does not establish that the blog posts are published material about the Petitioner in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, in part because the record does not 
establish that the blogs are widely read in order to constitute major media. The Petitioner provided 
letters from the editors of the blog post websites in response to the RFE, which provided general 
information about the authors of the blog posts, the dates of publication, and the number of views the 
posts received. The record also contains website statistics from a website called SimilarWeb. 
3 
The Director acknowledged the letters from the editors; however, the Director found that the record 
does not establish that the blog posts constitute major media as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that a prior, non-precedent decision, Matter of A-S-, 2018 WL 
1168942, *3 (AAO 2018), "states that submission by the petitioner an article [sic] which includes the 
title, date, and author and that constitutes published material about the petitioner relating to his career, 
together with evidence showing that the magazine qualifies as a major media, establishes that the 
petitioner satisfies the criteria." The Petitioner reasserts that the letters from the editors and website 
statistics establish that websites that published the blog posts are "top-ranked media in sports." 
The Petitioner refers to our non-precedent decision concerning a professional DJ and music producer 
who did not establish that he satisfied at least three of the 10 criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
This decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS officers in future 
adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3( c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the 
specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. Moreover, Matter of A-S- stated 
that the petitioner in that case "provided evidence showing that the magazine qualifies as a major 
medium," without specifying the particular evidence in that record and how it demonstrated that 
magazine qualified as a major medium. Matter of A-S-, 2018 WL 1168942 at *3. Accordingly, the 
non-precedent decision Matter of A-S- provides neither controlling nor persuasive guidance in this 
matter. 
We first note that one of the three website statistics does not apply to the website that published a blog 
post about the Petitioner. Specifically, one of the websites bears the URL https://champion.com.ua, 
and the letter from the editor of that website describes Champion.com.ua as "the oldest Ukrainian 
sports site." However, the website statistics from Similar Web in the record relate to "champion.com," 
which the statistics describe as the 198th mostpopular"fashionand apparel" website and 4,908thmost 
popular website in the United States. Therefore, the record does not contain website statistics 
regarding the Ukrainian sports site at the URL https://champion.com.ua. 
The record does not otherwise establish that the three blog posts about the Petitioner were published 
by major media, as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The letters from the editors, as 
translated in the record, describe the websites as "the leading Ukrainian sports release," "a Ukrainian 
sports website dedicated to domestic and foreign sports," and "the oldest Ukrainian sports site," 
respectively. The website statistics in the record that relate to the two remaining websites indicate that 
they rank 206th and 2,685th in Ukraine, respectively, and that approximately 85% of both websites' 
traffic comes from Ukraine; however, the record does not contextualize those statistics and elaborate 
on how that information may establish that the websites are the type of major media contemplated by 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). For example, although the website statistics also indicate the average 
number of visits the websites receive monthly, the record does not explain how that a predominantly 
Ukrainian audience of any particular size is a substantial enough portion of the overall Ukrainian 
1 Although the Director found that at least one of the blog posts does not identify its author, the Petitioner clarifies on 
appeal the locations in the blogposts where the names of the authors appeared. We withdraw the Director's statement to 
the contra1y. 
4 
population for those statistics to indicate that the websites are major media. See 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F App'x, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (providing that evidence of published material 
in major media about the person should establish that the circulation ( online or in print) or viewership 
is high compared to other statistics and show who the intended audience is, as well as the title, date, 
and author of the material.). Because the record does not establish that the three websites that 
published blog posts about the Petitioner are major media, the record does not satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Because the record does not satisfy the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)-(iii), and because the 
Petitioner does not assert, and the record does not support the conclusion, that the record satisfies the 
criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 2 04. 5 (h )(3 )(v )-(x), we need not determine whether the record satisfies the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) because, even if it did, it would not satisfy at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, we reserve our opinion regarding the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In summation, the record does not satisfy a least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the 10 criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which 
is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise 
ineligible). Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not 
support a conclusion that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the 
classification sought. 
The Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5