dismissed EB-1A Case: Barista

MATTER OF M-M-M-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 16, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a barista, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. In addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he intends to continue to work in the United States in his area of expertise. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien 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 alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of M-M-M-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to a beneficiary's occupation. 
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) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a barista who has participated in competitions in Iran and the United States. 
Because he has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met only two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria , awards under 8 C.F.R. § 20~.5(h)(3)(i) and judging under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The record reflects that the Petitioner won the 
In addition, he judged barista competitions, such as the 
in . Iran. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner satisfied the 
awards and judging criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets one additional criterion, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
2 
.
Matter of M-M-M-
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner submits three screenshots from sprudge.com. The first screenshot, 
is about the championship , mentioning the Petitioner only one 
time, and does not include the date of the article as required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iii). Articles that are not about a petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, 
e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a 
finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). The other two screenshots, 
and 
reflect published material about the Petitioner. However, while 
the Petitioner claims that com "is an award-winning coffee blog" and "is the 
flagship blog of the he did not support his assertions with documentation 
to demonstrate the website's standing as a professional or major trade publication or other major 
medium. 
In addition, the Petitioner offers three screenshots from 
and 
Two of the screenshots, 
' mention the Petitioner one time as 
being a competitor but are articles about the championship. Moreover, they do not identify the 
authors of the material as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The third screenshot , 
is about the Petitioner ; however , the 
screenshot does not contain the date and author of the material. Furthermore, while the Petitioner 
claims that · - is "Iran's first and foremost Farsi-language professional coffee website," he 
did not supplement the record to support his assertions that the website is a professional or major 
trade publication or other major medium. 
Moreover, the Petitioner submits a screenshot from ghahvehdaan.ir that reflects an interview with 
him, but it does not include the date an author of the screenshot, and he did not provide evidence 
showing that it is a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. The Petitioner 
also presents a screenshot from bourseandbazaar.com that does not reflect published material about 
him as it relates to Iran's cafe culture. In addition, the Petitioner does not offer evidence establishing 
the website is a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. 
Finally, the Petitioner provides two screenshots from com that reflect published material 
about him. While the Petitioner claims that the website is "[ o ]ne oflran' s premier coffee websites," 
he did not offer supporting documentation to demonstrate that it is a professional or major trade 
publication or other major medium. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he 
satisfies this criterion. 
3 
Matter of M-M-M-
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 ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 1 Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. For 
the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-M-M-, ID# 1521185 (AAO July 16, 2018) 
1 In addition, as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
do not need to determine whether he intends to continue to work in the United States in his area of expertise. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
4