dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 12685089 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB . 3, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a chief executive officer (CEO) , seeks classification as an alien 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 petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which he must meet at least three . 
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 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 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 ana lysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate rec ognition 
of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationa lly 
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 criteria 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. USCJS, 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner serves as the CEO for I ~, "which is al I that 
empowers retail and service employees! I I !'1 Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 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 fulfilled only one criterion, leading 
or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets six 
additional criteria . After reviewing all of the evidence, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner 
satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary 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) . 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he received prizes or awards, and 
they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 2 The 
Petitioner claims that he "has been the recipient of significant venture capital funding" froml I 
I 1,1 !, and I I However, the Petitioner did 
not establish that he actually received the venture capital funding . 
The record contains a letter frortj I, managing partner a~ l who stated that "[ w ]e only 
invest in B2B software companies" and "[ o ]ur network is particularly valuable to the B2B companies in 
which we invest." In addition, the record includes a letter froml I managing director at 
I I who indicated that "[the Petitioner's] organization has received an award of venture capital 
1 See page 3 of the Petitioner's initial cover letter. 
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 ADJJ-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https :/ /www.uscis .gov/policymanual/HTML/Policy Manual.html. 
2 
fro Lr----------" "[the Petitioner] was instrumental inC]s receipt of venture capital 
.__ ___ ----.-__ ,__ _ _.," and "[the Petitioner's] excellence as a technology entrepreneur is a 
primary reason fo s recei t of venture capital from~--.=====.--___.•" Further, the record 
reflects a letter fro.i.._ __ ~---------' managing director atl I who stated that l I 
provides mentorship-driven seed-stage investment services for technology-oriented companies" and 
I I is extremely competitive, with only 9 companies selected (includingLJ out of over 1,000 
applications." The Petitioner also offered evidence of financial documentation showing □' s receipt 
of the venture capital froml 1,1 I, and I I The description of this type of evidence in 
the regulation provides that the focus should be on the alien's receipt of the awards or pri;es, a
1 
opposed 
to his or her employer's receipt of the awa
1 
ds or rrizes. 3 Although the evidence shows tha received 
the funding froml~_~l I I and the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he received the 
venture capital funding consistent with this regulatory criterion. 4 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that receiving venture capital funding qualifies as a prize or 
award. The Petitioner provides archived screenshots from uscis.gov entitled, "Understanding the EB-1 
Requirements for Extraordinary Ability," stating under the awards criterion: 5 
Note: If you have received venture capital funding or have been awarded a grant, you 
may submit evidence of the funding or grant awarded, including the amount of the funding 
or grant criteria used in awarding the funding or grant. Evidence of other investments, 
such as those from an accredited angel investor, may also be used. 
( emphasis added). 
The screenshots indicate guidance on May 4, 2017; however, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
this information is binding in this proceeding, or that the guidance was in effect in any form when the 
Petitioner filed the petition in 2020. In addition, the prior guidance provided that the alien received 
the venture capital funding, which, as discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish his actual receipt 
of it. 
Furthermore, assuming that venture capital could be considered a prize or award, this would not mean 
that any and all venture capital, from whatever source, is a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award. Although the Petitioner provided background material about the companies, such as 
screenshots from the companies' websites, and information regarding capital venture funding in 
general, the Petitioner did not explain or show how the evidence demonstrates the national or 
international recognition of the specific venture capital funding froni O [ I I, andl I 
as a prize or award for excellence in the field. 
The Petitioner also argues that he "was awarded the 20181 I Award, 
byl I Business." As discussed above, the description of this type of evid~e-n-ce-in-th_e_r_e_g_u-la-ti-o~n 
provides that the focus should be on the alien's receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to his or her 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6. 
4 While the letters credited the Petitioner for securing the venture capital funding on behalf of 0, we considered his 
role under the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). . 
5 The Petitioner previously provided archived screenshots from uscis.gov entitled, "Understanding O-lA Requirements." 
3 
employer's receipt of the awards or prizes. 6 Although he provided screenshots from 
I I reporting thatD received the award, the Petitioner did not establish that he 
received the 20181 !Award. In fact, the award category was for~-------~ rather 
than for individuals, indicating the Petitioner's ineligibility for the award. 
Finally, the Petitioner contends for the first time on appeal that he "was also awarded as one of thee=] 
I , lin 2018 byl I," and he "regret[s] that [he] did not include evidence of this 
award previously." As the Petitioner did not make this claim or present supporting documentation to 
the Director in his initial filing or after the Director afforded him an opportunity in a request for 
evidence, we will not consider this additional claim and supporting evidence in our adjudication of 
this appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (providing that if"the petitioner 
was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the 
record before the denial, we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal for any purpose" and that 
"we will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of proceedings" before the Chief); see also Matter 
ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not show that he meets 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). 
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. 7 The Petitioner argues that membership inl I 
fulfills this criterion. The record contains a letter froml I managing director at 
I I who stated: 
I submit this statement as evidence of [the Petitioner's] membership inl I as a 
founder in our program beginning in the Spring of 2016. [The Petitioner's] 
membership in I I is the result of his outstanding achievements and 
extraordinary ability in the field of technology entrepreneurship. 
I receives thousands of applications per year, all through our standardized 
~o_n_h __ n_e_a_p~plication. I I focuses only on the top one percent of applicants and 
admits less than one percent of applicants.I I admits only the most outstanding 
founders who are proposing products that solve real problems or create meaningful 
innovations. The primary focus of the application process is on the skill, talent, ability, 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6. 
7 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 
and achievements of the applicant founders. We only select those founders who have 
with extraordinary business and technical skills, who have proven their outstanding 
achievements through demonstrable progress on their businesses, products, or 
prototypes. 
As ~ I member, [the Petitioner] has successfully navigated our rigorous and 
extremely selective process that demands outstanding achievements and extraordinary 
ability .... 
Although he continuously repeats regulatory language and terminology,! I's statements 
are not supported by the documentation contained in the record, nor do they demonstrate that the 
Petitioner meets the requirements of this regulatory criterion. Repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajfd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. 
Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
In addition to press coverage ofi I, the Petitioner also submitted screenshots froml I' 
website promoting itself: advertising its benefits, and listing fonded and participating companies. 8 
However, the documentation does not showl I' membership requirements or selection criteria. 
Associations may have multiple levels of membership, and the level of membership afforded to the 
alien must show that in order to obtain that level of membership, the alien was judged by recognized 
national or international experts as having attained outstanding achievements in the field for which 
classification is sought. 9 Althoug~ I asserted thatl l"select[ s] those founders who 
have with extraordinary business and technical skills, who have proven their outstanding achievements 
through demonstrable progress on their businesses, products, or prototypes," the screenshots do not 
reflect membership requirements as a "founder" to corroborate his claims. Further,I l did 
not elaborate and explain how "demonstrable progress" portrays outstanding achievements consistent 
with this regulatory criterion. 
Finally] I did not indicate whether recognized national or international experts, as 
required by this regulatory criterion, judge the outstanding achiev~ments fo{ membership. Further, 
although the Petitioner rovided a cover a e entitled, "List of l J Jud es," and attached 
screenshots entitled,~--------------~-----~--~-----~ 
I I' which lists individuals' names and companies, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
mentors :articipate in the judging of outstanding achievements and determine membership with 
I J Rather, according to the screenshots froml I website, the mentors "will help you 
with product development, market fit, and who will also provide valuable introductions to help grow 
your company - fast." The Petitioner did not show that the mentors are also responsible for judging 
membership withl I Even if the mentors judge membership, the Petitioner did not establish 
8 The Petitioner also provided numerous screenshots ranging on various topics such as start-up and accelerator programs, 
lead investors, and venture capital financing; however, he did not demonstrate how they show the membership 
requirements ot1 I In addition, the Petitioner offered screenshots from onstartups.com entitled,! 0 I 
I I" reflecting advice froml lin submitting an application. 
Although the screenshots reflect tips in preparing an application, they do not describe any membership requirements with 
I I 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7. 
5 
that they are comprised of recognized national or international experts as he only provided their names 
and companies without evidence of their recognition or acclaim. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show 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 fulfill 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 
the material. 10 The Petitioner argues that he "provided examples from more than 20 publications that 
were about him and his company," but he only addresses two of those examples on appeal. 
Specifically, the Petitioner submitted an article entitled, 'I I 
'-------------~ 'which included the date and author, posted on bloomberg.com. The 
article, however, does not reflect published material about the Petitioner relating to his work. Rather, 
the article pertains to anD developed by D in which the Petitioner comments about the app. 
Articles that are not about an alien do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. 
Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles 
regarding a show are not about the actor). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts: 
[His] interview oQBusiness Network, in particular, is a concerning oversight. He 
was personally interviewed and featured on a 4:00 minute segment on one of the 
network's most popular news programs,.__ _______ _,' on! • 12017. 
On this panel he discussed his contributions made to the drafting of worker scheduling 
legislation in 1 1 and his ex5ertise on worker schedulinr legislation in three 
municipalities including! _ ,I J and I _ His visual presence 
being interviewed on a panel of four industry experts is shown through the screenshots. 
_ _ _ Video evidence of this interview se ment can be found online by searching "[The 
Petitioner]" and '---------....--------1,c=J Business." If the journalists had only 
wanted to share information about.___~ the company, there would have been no need 
for [the Petitioner] to appear in person on the panel. Or to appear at all. His presence 
there was intrinsically about hi~, on the program he spoke about his personal 
efforts advocating in front of thel__J City Council and other government bodies to 
make smart policy decisions are made about hourly workers_ 
The Petitioner submitted eight still shots from the interview_ However, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how any of the still shots reflect published material about him relating to his work. While 
the still shots indicate an interview on I O I' they do not corroborate his claim that 
the interview was about him. In fact, based on the still shots, the interview appears to be aboutO's 
10 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
6 
D 11 Furthermore, the burden remains with the Petitioner to provide sufficient evidence to support 
his claims rather than informing us to perform an Internet search. It is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). In addition, the Petitioner did 
not include the author of the material. The inclusion of the title, date, and author of the material is not 
optional but a regulatory requirement. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
As it relates to other items not specifically addressed by the Petitioner, the majority of the items do 
not include the titles, dates, and/or authors of the material. Furthermore, with the exception of one 
item from f6s.com, the remaining items do not show published material about him relating to his 
work. 12 Althougl th~y riefly mention his name or quote him for source material, they are not about 
him but pertain to For example, the techstartups.com screenshots reflect an article aboutO 
receiving fonding in which the Petitioner is quoted relating to the offerings of1 I the article does 
not discuss him. In fact, the Petitioner is not even mentioned in some of the items. Moreover, with 
the exception of screenshots posted on usatoday.com and wsj.com, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that any of the websites constitute professional or major trade publications or other major. 13 While he 
provided statistics, such as global rankings, country rankings, category rankings, and total visits from 
SimilarWeb, the Petitioner did not explain or show the significance of the figures, indicating major 
status or standing. 14 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies 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 specification for which classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner argues his eligibility for this criterion based on "as a member atj I " Th: 
record reflects that the Petitioner provided an email fro neral manager o~~---~J 
to the Petitioner, relating to information about "Becomin: '· a screenshot from 
.__ ____ -,---~~-......-· g an overview ofl Jane..,.....-~~-...,_ ____ __, program 
mana to the Petitioner, welcoming him to~----~ and a screenshot from 
'.========r__.listing the Petitioner as a mentor. In addition, the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
l CEO of I lwho stated that he is "familiar with [the Petitioner's] work as a 
mentor atl t' and "[the Petitioner] provided guidance to web and mobile startups on 
business development, sharing his wisdom to other entrepreneurs." 15 
11 For instance, the still shots reflecd 
I I" ........,,______,,.,,.,,.....---,------,--....,........,.--'. '1 t ancil , 
,H,__ __ __. 
12 The screenshot from f62.com does not include the title and date and appears to be self-authored. 
13 The screenshots from usatoday.com li{===limang ore of the best places to work without any mention of the Petitioner, 
and the screenshots from wsj.com relate~~--~-.....,....,...~- with the Petitioner briefly quoted for the article. 
14 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics)+'-·------, 
15 The Petitioner provided additional reference letters froml I CEO of ... l ---,---- ... 1..:uauWi<I I I 
CEO o~ I as evidence i;uder bisl I However, neither letter mentiondor indicates the 
Petitioner's participation as al !mentor. 
7 
This regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to show that he has not only been invited to judge the 
work of others, but also that he actually participated in the judging of the work of others in the same 
of allied field of specialization. 16 The Petitioner, however, did not demonstrate how the evidence 
shows that he participated as a judge of the work of others. He did not establish that his participation 
as a mentor involved judging the work of others consistent with this regulatory criterion. Moreover, 
the emails and screenshots from I I do not contain probative information detailing whom, 
what, where, and when he mentored and how such mentoring corresponds to judging the work of 
others. Likewise, whilel !indicated that the Petitioner "provided guidance," he did not 
further elaborate and explain how guiding, assisting, or advising demonstrates participation as a judge 
of the work of others. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this 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). 
In order to meet the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 17 For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. The Petitioner indicates that he "led the team that develope~'s source 
code to develop the core technology which has revolutionized the wayl manageLJ 
I I' He does not claim, nor does the record reflect, that he developed the source code. 
Although the Petitioner's role in leading the team in developing the source code is more appropriate 
under the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the Petitioner's argument 
must show how his leadership constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field in 
order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner argues that "his original contribution has been licensed by maJor retailers for 
approximately $1.8 million" and references licensing agreements and a '--------------' 2019 Year End Report. Although the evidence shows licensing agreement~ with retailers, such as 
I l,i II 1,1 I, and[ ] the Petitioner 
did not establish how entering into service agreements shows that his leadership rises to an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. He did not demonstrate that the securing of subscription 
~ments with retailers significantly impacted or influenced the overall field in a major way beyond 
L_J 18 Moreover, the Petitioner did explain the importance of receiving $1.8 million for the 
subscription license and how that equates to being majorly significant in the field. 
16 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
17 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
18 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not conoborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
8 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that he submitted two testimonial letters that "describe in detail 
how [he] has led I t and "describe his original contributions to the field of technology 
entrepreneurship that resulted from him being extraordinary in this field." The letters, however, do 
not contain detailed, specific information explaining how the Petitioner's leadership has resulted in 
original contributions of ma·or significance in the field; instead, the letters make broad statements. 
For instance, L_ ____ -r--_.___.,,o-founder of I I referenced an article published in 
Techcrunch that "discuss[ed~_~and [the Petitioner's] work as bringing al ~ I 
experience to the front lines, with employees in need of products that solve problems" The record 
reflects screenshots of an article posted on techcrunch.com that reported od I indicated that 
I I received fonding, and quoted the Petitioner about the purpose of the app. The article does not 
mention or address the Petitioner's leadership and how it has affected the field in a significant manner. 
Moreover, I btated that as the founder and CEO, 1 I has significantly changed this 
business sector, and experienced remarkable success securin business partnerships where the I ] 
D..is_ utilized by international companies includin I I, I.__ ___ __.! c=J, I l andl ~ Again_,__ __ __,does not describe how the Petitioner has 
"significantly changed this business sector" through his leadership in the greater field other than 
securing business partnerships wit" I 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter frorr I vice president atl l, who discussed ,..::.:-;;.;..:.::....:::;...:..;:::~------,----J....C....:C.:....:.....i:..::...::..:....:.:c..::.::::..:....:c..:...,,. ___ w.....;~;:___:;.::..:....:...;;.;.::_.::..:....:c..., 
the prospective benefits of thel such as 1 
1.__ _________________ __.f' "billions of cost can be saved on both the corporate 
and employee side," and "[t]his will help minimum wage workers earn more income." (emphasis 
added). I ~ hypothesizes on the effect of thel I at some undetermined time in the 
future withc7ut showjng pow it has already significantly impacted the field in a major way. 
Furthermore(,,_.----~' does not address how the Petitioner's leadership has greatly influenced or 
affected the overall field outside ofj I 
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual 
influence or high impact his leadership has had on the overall field. Letters that specifically articulate 
how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent 
work add value. 19 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not 
add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this 
criterion. 20 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. 
Att): Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
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. 
19 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
20 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff din pait 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). 
9 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. at 1108, affd, 905 F. 2d at 41. Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, 
the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant 
petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of 
another immigration petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, 
at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies the criteria relating to awards, memberships, 
published material, judging, and original contributions. Although the Petitioner claims eligibility for 
an additional criterion on appeal, relating to high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), we need not 
reach this additional ground. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of 
three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve this issue. 21 Accordingly, we need not provide 
the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we 
advise that 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 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)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the Petitioner serves as a CEO of a company, the record does not contain sufficient evidence 
establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
21 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); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
10 
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. 
11