dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 2, 2024 In Re: 33967269 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a Brazilian jiu-jitsu competitor, seeks to classify himself as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the athletics. See 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 received a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. 
The Director further concluded that the record does not satisfy, in the alternative, at least three of the 
10 initial evidentiary criteria. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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 enter the 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 that 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 
On the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner described the proposed 
employment he seeks as "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Athlete." As noted above, the Director concluded the 
record does not establish the Petitioner received a one-time achievement of a major, internationally 
recognized award. The Director further determined that the record does not satisfy, in the alternative, 
at least three of the 10 criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Specifically, the Director 
determined that the record satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (viii). However, the 
Director also concluded that the record does not satisfy the criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(iii), 
(v), and (vii). On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that, in addition to satisfying the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (viii), the record satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(iii), (v), and 
(vii). The Petitioner does not assert on appeal that the record satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi), (ix)-(x), thereby waiving these criteria. See, e.g., Matter ofM-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 
762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009) (citing Greenlaw v. US., 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (upholding the party 
presentation rule)). The Petitioner does not overcome the Director's denial for the reasons discussed 
below. 
Documentation of the [noncitizen 's] receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Director acknowledged that the record establishes the Petitioner competed in various Brazilian 
Jtu-Jttsu tournaments. However, the Director distinguished Adult and Master classifications, 
observing, "Generally speaking, the top competitors compete in the Adult division, which in turn 
would mean that the small percentage of competitors who have risen to the very top of the sport as 
competitors would compete in the Adult division." In contrast, the Director noted that the Master 
classification "is reserved for those who are over 30 years old," not necessarily those who have risen 
to the very top of the sport as competitors. Based on that distinction, the Director did not "consider 
the honors earned by the [P]etitioner in the various Masters Divisions to qualify him under this 
criterion." 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that the record establishes he has won various awards at Brazilian 
jiu-jitsu tournaments, including awards for first place at two international open championships held in 
California in 2019. The Petitioner also asserts that the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) does not 
preclude age-based classifications within competitions from lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The Petitioner resubmits evidence 
summarizing the results of the various tournaments in which he participated. 
The Director appears to conflate the criteria of a final merits analysis-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-with the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). See 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d 1115. The plain language, "[d]ocumentation of the [noncitizen's] receipt oflesser 
nationally or internationally recognizes prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor," does 
not impose a requirement that the prizes or awards in question must have been earned while competing 
against "the small percentage of competitors who have risen to the very top of the sport as 
competitors," as the Director suggests. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Thus, the issue is not whether the 
Petitioner earned the awards in question while competing against "the small percentage of competitors 
who have risen to the very top of the sport as competitors" but, rather, whether the record establishes 
the prizes or awards are for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
We acknowledge that the record contains documentation that the Petitioner received various awards 
for finishing within the top three places for his particular belt color and weight classification at various 
Brazilian jiu-jitsu tournaments between 2013 and 2022. However, the tournament results-and the 
record in general-do not provide sufficient context to establish that the results indicate prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 For example, neither the tournament results 
specifically nor the record in general establish the criteria for entry into the tournament and how many 
participants there were for the belt color and weight classifications in which the Petitioner competed. 
We note that many results for a given belt color and weight classification among the tournament results 
indicate two or even just one finalist, indicating that, in many cases, awardees received their prizes or 
awards for being among the few or only participants, not for excellence in the field of endeavor. Thus, 
even when the Petitioner placed among the top three finalists, the record does not establish how such 
a prize or award resulted from excellence, rather than from being among only three participants in a 
given belt color and weight classification at a given tournament. 
Without more probative, relevant evidence, the Petitioner has not established that he received lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Therefore, the Petitioner does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Documentation of the [noncitizen 's] membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication 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). 
1 Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for granting a prize or award was excellence in the field include, but 
are not limited to: the criteria used to grant the prize or award; the national or international significance of the prize or 
award in the field; the number of awardees or prize recipients; and limitations on competitors. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
3 
The Director acknowledged that the record establishes the Petitioner holds a first-degree black belt in 
Brazilian jiu-jitsu. However, the Director noted that the record establishes a first-degree black belt 
"can be requested after 'a minimum of 3 years of proven activity,"' rather than requiring outstanding 
achievements. The Director further observed that the record does not establish that "any specific belt 
level or degree of that belt level that requires any more 'outstanding achievements' to obtain than 
another ... belt level or degree of a belt color." Therefore, the Director concluded that the record does 
not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that the 
requirements for a first-degree black belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu "reflect a high level of expertise, 
dedication, and achievement in the sport." He also reasserts that he "was judged by recognized 
national or international experts as having attained outstanding achievements in the field for which 
classification is sought" in order to receive his first-degree black belt and, thus, that it satisfies the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The record establishes that the International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation (IBJJF) awarded the 
Petitioner a first-degree black belt certificate on December 26, 2018. The record contains an excerpt 
from the TBJJF's General System of Graduation, which, in relevant part, indicates that the 
requirements to apply for a black belt certificate, in addition to a minimum age of 16, include the 
following: 
• Must be affiliated to IBJJF at the time of the request. 
• The athlete cannot have a provisional graduation (see Article 7). 
• Must provide a First Aid or CPR course certificate. 
• Must provide an IBJJF Referee Training Program, Rules Seminar or Rules Webinar 
Certificate of successful completion dated within a 12 (twelve) month period before 
the date of application. 
The General System of Graduation excerpt also states that, generally, membership requests "must be 
signed/approved by an TBJJF affiliated Black Belt Professor." The document further indicates that a 
first-degree black belt "can be requested after a minimum period of 3 (three) years of proven activity 
in the Black Belt under IBJJF," and that such activity can be proven through the following: 
• Active membership: Maintaining active membership through the year(s). 
• Academy registration under IBJJF: listed as a Head Professor or Additional 
Professor. 
• Approving students: Professors who regularly approve athletes' membership 
requests under IBJJF through the year(s). 
• Black Belt/Degree Certification previously granted by TBJJF. 
• Titles won by the athlete in an IBJJF championship. 
• IBJJF Referee Training Program Certificate and Rules Course Certificate, both 
granted by TBJJF. 
Neither the General System of Graduation excerpt nor the remainder of the record establish that either 
a black belt in general, or a first-degree black belt specifically, require outstanding achievements of 
their members as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
As quoted above, the requirements for a black belt include the minimum age of 16, completion of 
certain medical and rules training programs, and "affiliat[ion] to TBJJF at the time of the request," not 
4 
outstanding achievements. In contrast, qualification for a first-degree black belt requires certain 
activity in a given year, but neither the General System of Graduation excerpt nor the remainder of the 
record indicates that an individual must satisfy all six-or even more than one-of the criteria to 
establish activity in a given year. Two of the six criteria (receipt of the black belt, and training program 
certificates) for a first-degree black belt appear to have been already satisfied upon receipt of the black 
belt, two other criteria apply only to IBJJF professors, and one of the other two remaining criteria 
simply contemplates "[m ]aintaining active membership," not outstanding achievements. 
We acknowledge that one of the six criteria for a first-degree black belt contemplates "[t]itles won by 
the athlete in an IBJJF championship." However, the General System of Graduation excerpt does not 
specify a minimum number of titles that must be won or, as discussed above, whether an individual 
must actually compete against other athletes, rather than receiving a title by default as the only 
participant in a given belt color and weight classification. Further, the plain language of the General 
System of Graduation excerpt is that simply maintaining active membership for three years as a black 
belt satisfies the eligibility criteria for a first-degree black belt, regardless of whether the individual in 
question has won any titles. Thus, although some first-degree black belts may have accomplished 
outstanding achievements, the IBJJF does not require outstanding achievements for membership as 
either a black belt in general or as a first-degree black belt specifically as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. Therefore, the Petitioner does not satisfy the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Published material about the [noncitizen] in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media, relating to the [noncitizen '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 Director acknowledged that the record contains "articles about the [Petitioner] relating to his 
work, but [the Petitioner] submitted no independent evidence that establishes that they are in major 
trade publications or other major media." The Director also observed that the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner "is commonly referred to [by a name other than his legal name] within the BJJ 
community" and, thus, articles referring to an individual with a name other than the Petitioner's legal 
name do not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Based on those issues, the Director 
concluded that the record does not contain published material about the Petitioner in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media, relating to the Petitioner's work in the field for which 
classification is sought. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts that "[t]he internet articles submitted ... adhere to high 
standards of journalism comparable to traditional print media." The Petitioner also states that he 
submitted various articles about individuals other than him "to illustrate that the articles about him 
were published in recognized platforms with significant circulation and credibility in the BJJ and 
sports communities-as compared to other publications." The Petitioner further asserts that articles 
in the record that refer to an individual with a name other than the Petitioner's legal name, bearing 
photographs of the Petitioner, establish that the Brazilian jiu-jitsu community commonly refers to the 
Petitioner by a name other than his legal name; therefore, those articles about an individual with a 
name other than the Petitioner's legal name are about the Petitioner. 
5 
The record contains copies of various articles about Brazilian jiu-jitsu, published by various entities, 
hosted at various URLs. We acknowledge that the entities that published the various articles about 
Brazilian jiu-jitsu appear to be forms of trade publications. 2 However, the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) contemplates "major trade publications or other major media," not merely some form 
of trade publication. The record contains generalized internet traffic data from Similarweb about some 
of the entities that published various articles about Brazilian jiu-jitsu; however, the internet traffic data 
does not establish how any of those entities qualify as major trade publications as contemplated by the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). For example, internet traffic data for "extra.globo.com" appears 
to indicate that, in April 2023, it had 41.4 million total visits, with average durations of 57 seconds, 
visiting an average of 1.51 webpages per visit, and that 96.99% of its visitors were from internet 
protocol addresses based in Brazil. However, the record does not contextualize the statistics, indicate 
their significance, or demonstrate that "extra.globo.com" qualifies as a major trade publication or other 
major media, as contemplated by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The remainder of the 
internet traffic data in the record bears similar inconclusive information. 
For the reasons addressed above, the record does not contain published material about the Petitioner 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to the Petitioner's work in 
the field for which classification is sought; therefore, the Petitioner does not satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the [noncitizen 's] original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director acknowledged that the record establishes the Petitioner "helped organize a BJJ 
tournament." However, the Director observed that the record does not establish how the Petitioner's 
help to organize one Brazilian jiu-jitsu tournament constitutes an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. Therefore, the Director concluded that the record does not satisfy the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that the I I event he coordinated constitutes an original 
contribution of major significance in the field, and he references the following evidence: "Letters 
from ... ] articles in the I I Jornal[, ... and] 
photographic evidence and promotional materials." 
The letters from _____________ summarize the I I event; however, they 
do not establish how the event was of major significance in the field. For example, they describe the 
"well-organized and meaningful event" as "symbolic fights," which "drew participants from various 
Brazilian states" and raised "1.5 tons of food" donated to a church, which "engendered a collective 
consciousness ofresponsibility and philanthropy among participants and attendees." I I 
elaborates that the food-raising efforts were specifically significant to him and the church that received 
the donated food, "where I am the Leader of the Project," but 
he does not clarify how the food-donation-raising charity event was of major significance in the field 
2 In evaluating whether a submitted publication is major media, relevant factors include the relative circulation, readership, 
or viewership. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
6 
of Brazilian jiu-jitsu more broadly. opines that "the event exemplifies the trne spirit 
of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu-a martial art that transcends the boundaries of the mats to impact society 
positively," but he does not specify how the event may have been of major significance in the field of 
Brazilian jiu-jitsu. 
In tum, the copy of a one-page article published by Jomal in the record reiterates 
information contained in the above-referenced letters, regarding participants from unspecified states, 
food collection, and general event activities. Copies of photographs and promotional materials in the 
record indicate that the event occurred in a small, multipurpose gymnasium. 
We acknowledge the merit of the I Itournament's "symbolic fights" and food donations. 
However, the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) contemplates "contributions of major significance 
in the field" of Brazilian jiu-jitsu. Because the record does not establish how thel !tournament 
was of major significance in the field of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, the Petitioner does not satisfy the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the display of the [noncitizen 's] work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Director acknowledged that the record establishes the Petitioner "participated in athletic 
competitions as a competitor that were shown to the public." However, the Director observed that the 
record does not establish that the athletic competitions were "put on display as part of an artistic 
exhibition or showcase." The Director noted that "it is inherent to the [Brazilian jiu-jitsu athlete] 
occupation to participate in events that may or may not be publicly viewed" and that "[t]hese events 
are not artistic exhibitions designed to showcase the participant's work in the same sense that a painter 
or sculptor displays his work in a gallery or museum." Based on those issues, the Director concluded 
the record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that Brazilian jiu-jitsu competitions "can qualify as art1st1c 
exhibitions or showcases" because of what he characterizes as an "established understanding ofmartial 
arts as a form of self-expressive performance." In support of the alleged "established understanding," 
the Petitioner generally references on appeal articles written by Dr. Deborah Klens-Bigman and Daniel 
Berger, which the Petitioner also cited throughout the record. The Petitioner further characterizes a 
non-precedential 2005 Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) decision as having set a precedent the 
Director ignored. 
The Petitioner's references to Dr. Klens-Bigman and Mr. Berger's articles throughout the record, 
including on appeal, are unpersuasive. Dr. Klens-Bigman specifically clarified in a publicly available, 
2007 essay published on the internet that, in the article the Petitioner quoted throughout the record, 
Toward a Theory of Martial Arts as Performance Art, "I was not addressing sports or martial art sport 
forms. That sports have no narrative drive and that it is incorrect to assign one to them is obvious .... 
To the extent performance studies considers sports, they come under the rnbric of public 
entertainments or spectacle." Deborah Klens-Bigman, Yet More Towards a Theory ofMartial Arts as 
Peiforming Art, In Yo: Journal of Alternative Perspectives, Electronic Journals of Martial Arts and 
Sciences (Dec. 2007), https://ejmas.com/jalt/2007jalt/jcsart_klens_0712.html. Rather, Dr. Klens­
Bigman explained, her theory applies to certain martial arts forms that are akin to conveying narratives 
7 
through symbolic dances. See id. Given that Dr. Klens-Bigman has specifically stated that her theory 
of martial arts as perfonnance art excludes "martial art sport forms," which she characterizes as "public 
entertainments," the Petitioner's references to Dr. Klens-Bigman's theory of martial arts as performing 
art in the context of the martial art sport form of Brazilian jiu-jitsu is unpersuasive. 
In turn, the excerpts from Mr. Berger's articles, quoted by the Petitioner in response to the Director's 
RFE and referenced on appeal, address "mixed martial arts," which we acknowledge may include 
Brazilian jiu-jitsu. However, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defmes "exhibition" as "a public 
showing (as of works of art, objects of manufacture, or athletic skill)." Exhibition, Merriam-Webster, 
www.merriam-webster.com. While the dictionary definition includes public showings other than 
those that are artistic in nature, the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
includes the modifier "artistic" and it explicitly requires that the exhibitions or showcases be artistic 
in nature, thus, not those displaying athletic skill. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
only considers non-artistic exhibitions or showcases as part of a properly supported claim of 
comparable evidence. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). The Petitioner 
asserts on appeal that "BJJ tournaments . . . satisfy[] the definitions of artistic exhibitions or 
showcases," not that the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) does not apply, and that such 
tournaments are non-artistic exhibitions or showcases that may establish comparable evidence. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). Because the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) specifically excludes non­
artistic competitions (such as those displaying athletic skill), and because Brazilian jiu-jitsu 
tournaments are athletic and competitive, not artistic, in nature, they do not satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Furthermore, because the Petitioner does not assert that Brazilian jiu-jitsu 
tournaments may establish evidence comparable to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) rather 
than qualifying under that criterion outright, we do not consider those non-artistic exhibitions or 
showcases as comparable evidence as contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
Next, the Petitioner rnischaracterizes a non-precedential AAO decision from 2005. The Petitioner 
erroneously states that "USCIS ... omitted consideration of the precedent set by the AAO decision 
EAC 03 112 51446 (Dec. 22, 2005)." However, 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 ). Setting aside 
this non-precedential decision's non-binding nature, it also does not bear instructive or persuasive 
value to the Petitioner's case. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the petitioner in the 2005 case, "a 
Music Director/Pianist/Vocal Coach, met the criterion [at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)] through 
performances at exclusive showcases designed for audience entertainment." However, we specifically 
observed in that case, "Not every performance is an artistic exhibition or showcase," as contemplated 
by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). We acknowledged in that case that "programs and fliers 
reveal that the petitioner has performed at exclusive showcases of opera and other music [ and] received 
equal billing with the singers he accompanied," persuading us that the record in that case satisfied the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) as applied to those facts. Beyond the differing evidence in the 
two cases' records, the 2005 case addressed an individual who worked as a music director, pianist, 
and vocal coach, not a Brazilian jiu-jitsu competitor like the Petitioner in the case on appeal. The 
Petitioner does not establish how a non-precedential case about an individual who worked as a music 
director, pianist, and vocal coach bears persuasive or instructive value to him, as a Brazilian jiu-jitsu 
competitor, and whether Brazilian jiu-jitsu competitions may qualify as artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. Therefore, the non-precedential 2005 case does not inform how the Petitioner satisfies the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
8 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established he received a one-time achievement or, in the alternative, evidence 
that meets at least three of the 10 criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 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. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 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)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and that 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. 
9