dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 6735751 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUNE 2, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , an entrepreneur in the field of business , seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S .C. § l 153(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy any of the initial evidentiary criteria , of which he must meet at least three . The Director further 
found that the Petitioner did not establish that he would continue work in his area of expertise in the 
United States. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act make s 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 
exten sive documentation , 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability , and 
(iii) the alien '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 his or her 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 he or she must provide sufficient qualifying 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). 
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 Petitioner claims to be an entrepreneur of extraordinary ability in business, having managed and 
directed companies in various fields. The records of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) indicate that in 2017 the Petitioner was granted E-2 nonimmigrant status and that he has been 
employed as the president ofl I a U.S. franchise of.__ ______ ~ a 
Brazilian beauty supply and beauty school company incorporated in Florida in 2010. The record also 
shows that in Brazil, the Petitioner has been employed as the owner of a logistics companyJ I I O ,I, a business offering services for ton logistics and mooring 
vessels, as well as warehousin , shi loadin and unloadin , and has oerformed port logistics services 
related to the oil industr a I I, and CT I 
Because the Petitioner 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 determined that the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the initial 
evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief claiming to meet eight criteria, relating 
to lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, membership in associations, published 
materials in major media, judging the work of others, original business contributions of major 
significance, artistic display, leading or critical role, and high salary. 1 After reviewing all of the 
evidence, we conclude that the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien'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 Petitioner argues that he meets this criterion based upon an award received byl I and a 
claimed award received by thel I In order to fulfill this criterion, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate that he received the prizes or awards, and they are nationally or 
1 We note that the Director determined that the Petitioner initially submitted evidence related to an additional criterion, 
commercial success in the performing arts at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), but did not satisfy this criterion. The Petitioner 
does not contest this issue on appeal and therefore we deem it to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 T&N Dec. 762, 
767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
2 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 2 Relevant considerations regarding 
whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field include, but are not 
limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international significance of 
the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well as any 
limitations on competitors. 3 
The Petitioner provided evidence regardin~ ~ s receipt of a recognition award plaque in 2015 
from for "the success and important receipt of the 8 PLETs, 
~-------~" We note that the English translation of the award is not accompanied by the 
re uired certification from the translator. 4 The Petitioner also submitted a letter dated 2019 from 
confirming that the Petitioner acted as "Contract and Project Manager" for 
involving "the delivery of a~---------~ project within I ..., I 
, from January through June 2015." He asserts that for the project the Petitioner "played a 
~k-ey_ro_l~e for the delivery of the scope of 8 I I Pipeline End Terminations (PLETs)," and indicates 
that the Petitioner's contribution of "delivery of the equipment on time, on budget and without 
incidents .... has been endorsed by a recognition award." The Petitioner additionally provided an 
article from www.forbes.com, indicating that~ ........ -----~ is the second-largest oil and gas 
a
thel l2017 list. Further, the Petitioner provided a May 2017 letter from I I 
, operational manager oti l indicating that the award regarding work on "the 
' is "one of the largest international oil & gas industry awards to date." However, the 
record does not contain, nor does the Petitioner reference, any corroborating evidence to support D I ts claims. 
Regarding the I laward, we agree with the Director that it was awarded to I I, not to the 
Petitioner himself. According to the plain language of this criterion, the evidence must establish that 
an individual petitioner is the actual recipient of the prizes or the awards. 5 On appeal, the Petitioner, 
through counsel, em,hasizes that "despite theOaward bearing only the name of the Petitioner's 
Company I J' his work was integral to the receipt of the award and the award should be 
credited to him. While the Petitioner submitted a letter from the awarding entity, explaining how he 
"played a key role" inl Is receipt of the C7recognition award, it remains that he is not the 
recipient of the award. In addition, this letter from the awarding entity was written years after the 
award was granted tol I and it does not indicate that the awarding entity's intent was to 
recognize the Petitioner individually for his work. The ~ner did not, for example, provide 
evidence that he received any individual recognition froml__Jcontemporaneous with the grrting I 
of the company award tol I In addition, the Petitioner did not establish tha~ l's 
award is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. While the award 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 Id. 
4 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). 
The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. The foreign language on the award plaque is in 
Portuguese, however, the certification indicates that the translator "is qualified to translate documents from Italian to 
English." 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra at 6 (stating that for this criterion, the focus should be on an 
individual's receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to his or her employer's receipt of the awards or prizes). 
3 
plaqre inrcates it was in recognition ofl l's performance on~--------~ project, 
and is undoubtedly a large oil and gas company, the record does not contain evidence establishing 
that the award is recognized nationally or internationally for excellence in the field beyond the awarding 
entity. 
The Petitioner also claims to satisfy this criterion based upon~s claimed recei t of the 2008 "Best 
Port" award. IHe provided a letter dated January 9, 2019 from 
director of the port authority,! ) who asserts that._______.'was awarded one 
of the best ports in Brazil in 2008" and that "[t]he methods for achieving such excellence included the 
participation of [the Petitioner] as managing director ofl I" The Petitioner also submitted a 
translated excerpt of an article dated 2008 from www.exam.com.br, indicating thatc=Jachieved a 
rating of "good " based u on " a surve with 200 executives from user companies completed in 
January by the , linked to the postgraduate nucleus of thel I 
University~--------~ " However, the Petitioner did not establish that he himself: 
as opposed to his employer, received this recognition. While the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
port authority management explaining how he was instrumental to the port's receipt of that 
recognition, it remains that he was not the recipient of this recognition. 
In addition, the record does not establish that the recognition the port received from D is a 
"nationally or internationally recognized prize or award" as required by the plain language of the 
regulation this criterion. In response to the Director's request for evidence such as a photograph of 
the award or copy of the award certificate, the Petitioner did not provide evidence that he received an 
award or prize fromD Further, although the Petitioner provided evidence thatc=J recognized 
the Petitioner's employer based on an academic survey of port users, the record does not demonstrate 
the national or international significance of that recognition. On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that 
"the ratings were granted upon evaluating the Eighteen (18) main ports in the entire country of Brazil." 
The fact that the survey rated ports on a national basis, however, does not establish that the rating itself 
has a reputation as a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien '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). 
The Petitioner asserts eli ibility for this criterion based on membership with the I d 
1,------------,.___J andc=J, the leasing company for I lo~ I in th 
Brazil I I. In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show ~--------~ that membership in the association is based on being judged by recognized national or international 
experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 6 In denying 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
4 
the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not submit evidence that the association requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
The Petitioner indicated membership withl land provided the aforementioned letter fromO 
~ I confirming the Petitioner's membership inl I According tol I 
L I, I I "require[ s] excellence of our members" and the Petitioner is an entrepreneur of 
"outstanding achievements" in the port market, "especially in logistical support for offshore oil and 
gas exploration and production activities." He summarizes some of the Petitioner's accomplishments 
as managing director for Din 2005, including the "simultaneous operations of intercontinental 
cargo ships and supply boats in oil and gas activities within the same port." On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts thatl l's letter "demonstrates that not just any professional within the 
industry may satisfy the standards for the Council's membership." 7 The record also contains a copy 
of the Petitioner's 2006/2007 badge for access toO issued byl I. 
Regarding the Petitioner's indicated membership i he submitted a letter fr""'o=m=l----------1 
president, who states that the Petitioner became director of.__ _ _, upon referral by~I ------~ 
I I due to his "vital" performance in winning the port lease for the organization in 1998. She 
asserts thatl ~'require[ s] outstanding achievement of our team" and the Petitioner's "contributions 
are of excellence." 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate, however, that the Petitioner's accomplishments as managing 
director for~ or on behalf of~---------- ........ are tantamount to an outstanding 
achievement consistent with this regulatory criterion. In addition, tie Petitioner did not provide 
supporting documentation, such as thj bylaws of I I and to corroborate the claims of 
I I and I and establish the ornauizations'r..m.e111.bership requirements. 8 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not show that membership itj ]andL_Jis judged by recognized 
national or international experts. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this criterion. 
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 shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about him in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of 
7 We note that in support of this argument, the Petitioner's brief also quotes additional statements purportedly in I I I Is letter that do not appear there, such as that the "slightest mistake made at a port where oil and gas are 
handled could cost millions of dollars and contribute to resource shortages ... therefore, [Petitioner's] membership on 
[the] council has been essential to the maintenance of [the Council's] excellence." 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (stating that relevant factors that may lead to a conclusion 
that membership was not based on outstanding achievements include years of experience in a particular field, payment of 
a subscription fee, or employment in certain occupations). 
5 
the material. 9 In support of this criterion the Petitioner submitted copies of 22 articles published 
between 1998 and 2001 in Brazilian newspapers, including A Gazeta, A Tribuna, A Gazeta Vitoria 
ES, A Gazeta Grande Vit r· z ta Mercantil, and Journal Vila Velha Noticias. The articles show 
that in 1998 D leased for the movement of sold bulk loads. In 2ooue to the growth 
of exploratory activities in the~~---~ and I I basins,D created to offer services 
to seven multinationals pursuing oil and gas exploration at the coast ofl l 1° Further, in 
2001 ~ entered into an agreement to provide port logistics services atl Ito the British 
compan~ I 
First, we note that five of the articles do not mention the Petitioner. While the remaining articles 
identify the Petitioner as the director of the ~-----~ and its related companies, I I I I and D, and several of them briefly quote him, they are not articles about him. 
Rather, the articles are about the I ts business activities related to its lease ofl I D including performing port logistics services related to the oil industry. Articles that are not about 
a petitioner do not fulfill 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). 11 In addition, we note that of the articles that mention the Petitioner, 13 articles do 
not contain either the required author or date of the material. 
Further, as it relates to Gazzetta Mercantil, the Petitioner provided screenshots from 
www.bloomberg.com and www.v-brazil.com which claimed that Gazzetta Mercantil is an economy 
and finance newspapaer and that "[i]t used to be the most important financial newspaper in Brazil, but 
it faced a crisis in the 1990s, bordering on bankruptcy." The Petitioner did not provide circulation 
figures for the publication to establish its major medium status consistent with this regulatory 
criterion. 12 Finally, the Petitioner did not present documentary evidence establishing that A Gazeta, 
A Tribuna, A Gazeta Vitoria ES, A Gazeta Grande Vitoria,. or Journal Vila Velha Noticias is a 
professional or major trade publication. 
Based on the above, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
This regulatory criterion requires an alien to show that he has participated as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specialization. 13 For the reasons outlined below, the record 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7. 
10 The published materials also indicate that in the mid- l 990s Brazil ended the petroleum monopoly held by PETROBRAS 
and opened the petroleum sector to foreign oil companies. 
11 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (providing that the published material should be about 
the petitioner relating to his or her work in the field, not just about his or her employer or another organization with whom 
he or she is associated). 
12 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (finding that evidence of published material in professional 
or major trade publication or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation (on-line or in print) is 
high compared to other circulation statistics and show the intended audience of the publication). 
13 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
6 
does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that he 
meets this criterion. 
The Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based his activities as vice president ~ 
~s company forl I The Petitioner submitted the aforementioned letter from L__-==._j 
L___Joperational mana~er ofl I who asserts that the Petitioner "continues to participate 
with us in the activities o I through I I, contributing as an expert judge of contracts and 
business progress of the port activities, and in maintaining and negotiating contracts of our clients 
though his evaluations of executive employee decisions and larger Port plans." 
In his decision, the Director found that, although the Petitioner asserts that the Petitioner has judged 
the work of other entrepreneurs or executives in their business capacities, the record does not contain 
evidence sufficient to show "the specific categories evaluated by the [p ]etitioner, the names of the 
participants, or their level of expertise." On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that I I's letter 
establishes that the Petitioner participated "as a judge through his employment as consultant for 
I I." This regulatory criterion requires evidence that the petitioner has served as "a judge of the 
work of others." The Petitioner has not established that performing routine managerial duties as a 
consultant such evaluating the "business progress of the port activities" and "negotiating contracts of 
I I clients though his evaluations of executive employee decisions and larger Port plans" equates 
to participation as a judge of the work of others in the field. 
In addition, the record does not include documentary evidence to corroborate I l's letter 
regarding the Petitioner's role. Depending on the specificity, detail, and credibility of a letter, USCIS 
may give the document more or less persuasive weight in a proceeding. The Board of Immigration 
Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply because it is "self­
serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing cases). The Board 
also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative testimonial 
and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or 
credibility, there is a greater need for a petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 
21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). Here, the record lacks specificity and detail of the Petitioner's role 
wit~ I. A letter asserting that the Petitioner judged "contracts and business progress of the 
port activities" without specifying the work he judged and the other workers' fields of specialization 
is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion. Accordingly, we find that this evidence does 
not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's qualification under this criterion. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that the recommendation letters submitted from his colleagues reflect his 
business-related contributions in the field. 14 In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish 
that not only has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the 
field. For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented 
14 Although we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 
throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a 
level of major significance in the field. The Director concluded that the authors do not provide specific 
examples of contributions that are indicative of major significance. On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains that the evidence establishes that his contributions to the field include "[c]reating l00's of 
jobs in the p~ ]ringing huge international oil and gas companies to Brazil, including D 
I land L___J to Brazil ... [b ]ringing more revenue into Brazil from the oil and gas sector, 
[ and] [b ]ringing employment opportunities for thousands of Brazilian Citizens." 
The record reflects that the Petitioner's recommendation letters confirm his entrepreneurial work for 
,..__ _______ ___., D, c=J, andl I For instanceJ I who 
worked with the Petitioner at c=J praises the Petitioner's "dedication and commitment" in "making 
~ a solid and recognized company within the Oil & Gas Indust " evaluatin ro · ects for clients 
operating in~ I and I I operational 
manager otLJ who also worked with the Petitioner at .___...,..praises the Petitioner's "dedication 
and commitment" to the initial development of thec=Jlort telinal, and his work with ~on 
"important contracts with~-------~J l an~ I" 
~------------ owner of a Brazilian port management company, asserts that the 
Petitioner is a pioneer in business and maritime trade in Brazil, based upon his successful management 
ofthe~port terminal and transformatiqn ofl l"from financial disaster to one that 
exclusively took on oil and gas activities." l I asserts in his aforementioned letter that 
the Petitioner's work as director of resulted in increasing "the terminal's trade capacity, bringin
9 lucrative contracts to the port terminal." .__ _____ _.a colleague of the Petitioner at .... l ____ _.J 
and I I claims that his work with the Petitioner on a project developing logistical 
support for the offshore segment i~ .... --------~~·generated 800 direct jobs in the Port." 
He states that the Petitioner's duties involved "managing the work of our largest clients such as 
I 1,1 I and c=J' and that "[t]he policies, projects, analytics, and logistics [the 
Petitioner] created are fundamental parts of our contracts .... " The record does not indicate, however, 
evidence that other entrepreneurs in Brazil have similarly utilized the Petitioner's policies, projects, 
analytics, and logistics. Here, the Petitioner has not established that the impact of his services extends 
beyond those companies and would connote a contribution of major significance to the field of 
business or entrepreneurship. 
Upon review, although the authors of the aforementioned letters demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
work was highly regarded by the companies with which he has worked, the letters do not establish 
how the Petitioner's work is viewed by the field as original contributions of major significance in the 
field. Here, the authors do not explain how the Petitioner has significantly impacted the field in a 
major way consistent with this regulatory criterion. The Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, 
detailed information identifying his original contributions and explaining the unusual influence his 
entrepreneurial work has had on the overall field. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's 
contributions are of major significance in the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 15 On 
the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not 
15 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
8 
considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 16 Moreover, 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att)· Gen., 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Additionally, demonstrating ability as a skilled entrepreneur is not itself a contribution of major 
significance; rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he has impacted the field as a whole. 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-135 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom 
dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Further, while the record contains press releases and media coverage pertaining to the Petitio~ 
above-mentioned involvement in the management of the I I port terminal, and his work at L_J 
providing port logistics to multinationals likel !pursuing oil and gas exploration at the 
coast ofj lthis evidence does not demonstrate that his work has influenced the broader 
field of business or entrepreneurship. Here, the record does not include documentary evidence 
showing the widespread implementation of the Petitioner's work, that it has been seminal, or that it 
otherwise equates to an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner argues that he meets this criterion based on his forum and conference resentations. 
The record contains photographs of the Petitioner delivering a presentation about the 
c==lat a 2008 Port Authority Conference, and a presentation to franchisors a~b_o_u_t~------
~ at theOForum Nacional de Franqueados. The Petitioner also provided a copy of those 
presentations. Further, information from the 2008 Port Authority Conference indicates that it was 
comprised of lectures related to offshore development in the port, and that "the target audience is the 
port workers ... and all civil society interested in the cause of the sector." 
The language of this criterion specifically requires display of the Petitioner's work at "artistic 
exhibitions or showcases" ( emphasis added). The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his work was 
displayed at any artistic exhibitions or showcases consistent with the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion. The Petitioner did not submit sufficient documentary evidence establishing that conducting 
a lecture or seminar in a teaching or commercial environment equates to displaying his work at 
exhibitions or showcases that can be considered "artistic" in nature. 17 
Based on the above, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
16 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff' din palt 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
17 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 9-10. 
9 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find that the Petitioner does not satisfy the criteria relating to awards, memberships, published 
material, judging, original contributions, and artistic display. Although he submits evidence for two 
additional criteria on appeal, relating to leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and high 
salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), we need not reach these additional grounds. As the Petitioner 
cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we 
reserve these issues. 18 Accordingly, we need not provide the type of final merits determination 
referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 19 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. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, 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 he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
18 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
19 In addition, as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
need not determine whether he is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" under section 
203(b)(l)(A)(ii) and will not address the Director's separate finding with respect to that issue. 
10