dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12797029 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive officer (CEO), 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 petition, concluding that although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification, it did 
not demonstrate, as required, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is 
an individual in that small percentage at the very top of the field. The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 1 
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 conclude that the Petitioner has 
not met this burden. Accordingly, 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 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 
1 The Petitioner provided a short statement identifying the basis for his appeal on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, and indicated that a brief would be submitted to the AAO within 30 days of the appeal's filing date (June 11, 
2020). As of the date of this decision, the record reflects that we have not received the Petitioner's brief and the record 
will be considered complete. 
(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 
international 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 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. 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the CEO and founder ofi I, a training center and business education provider 
that organizes business and self-improvement training events. The Petitioner indicates that 
.__ ___ __.!has three offices in Russia and an office in th , where it intends 
to market its .__ ____________________ __, 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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). The Petitioner claimed to meet seven of these ten criteria, summarized 
below: 
• (i) Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii) Membership in associations which require outstanding achievements of their members; 
• (iii), Published material in professional publications or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others in the field; 
• (v), Contributions of major significance in the field; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met three of the claimed evidentiary criteria, relating to 
published material, judging and performing in a leading or critical role for an organization that has a 
2 
distinguished reputation, but determined that he had not met the remaining four claimed criteria. 
Because the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidence requirements, the Director proceeded to a final 
merits determination. The record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfied 
the three referenced criteria. Specifically, Petitioner established that he and his work were the subject 
of an article published by Kommersant, that he judged several competitions in the field of business, 
and that he is the leader of a company with a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "applied the wrong examination criteria to several 
of the qualifying criterion [sic] in dismissing several of the claims," but does not specify which of the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) he is contesting. As the Petitioner has demonstrated that he 
satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the evidence submitted in support of the remaining criteria in 
the context of the final merits determination farther below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20.2 For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 
eligibility. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner established._! --........,=!..!I i;.!.!n.1..I ---------i:IRussia in 2010 and 
has served as its CEO since that time, currently based at it~I ] office. The record 
does not include the Petitioner's curriculum vitae or otherwise provide details regarding his earlier 
career but rather reflects that most of his documented achievements in business have resulted from his 
work over the last decade, particularly in the last several years. 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner has been featured in a major media publication, judged others 
within his field, and performed in a leading role. We have also considered evidence related to his 
claimed award and membership, his published work, and his business-related contributions. The 
record, however, does not demonstrate that his achievements reflect a "career of acclaimed work in 
the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
As it relates to published materials in major media, the record reflects that Kommersant, a daily 
newspaper with national circulation in Russij, publi
0
s
1
ed an interview with the Petitioner about his 
work withl I in its online edition in 2018. Overall, however, the evidence reflects 
that most media coverage of the Petitioner and his work to date has been in publications that are local 
2 See also USCTS 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 ADI 1-14 10 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of the immigrant classification). 
3 
or regional in nature. For example, the Petitioner submitted a 2016 interview with him published by 
the website Uniform Republican Business Portal (www.erbp.ru), which is described as "a 
multifunctional Internet resource, designed to become an information and communication platform 
for business representatives of the Republic ofl l" 
The record also reflects that the Petitioner was selected by th edition of the magazine Sobaka 
~ h as one of the "Top 30 Most Famous Peo le in 2016. Specifically, the 
evidence shows that he was one of 30 individuals from~----~nominated for prizes in seven 
categories that included business, as well as sports, arts-related and lifestyle categories. While the 
record does not demonstrate that he won the prize in the business category, it does show that his photo 
and a brief profile appeared in the online magazine as a result of his nomination. However, the 
Petitioner does not establish that this recognition, while notable, evidences his receipt of a nationally 
recognized award as claimed, or that he garnered national acclaim and recognition based on his 
nomination and appearance in a magazine with a regional focus. 
In addition to these three publications, the Petitioner provided evidence that several classes and events 
in which he participated as a presenter or lecturer were announced online in the events section ofO 
Tod,Q.rlh,ttp:/Otoday/events) in 2016. Finally~rovided screenshots indicating that the website 
Th~oom included him on its list of the toIL-Jinstagram profiles from natives of the city. The 
Petitioner appears~on the list with over 18,000 subscribers. The article identifies him as the head 
ofl I and as an entrepreneur and coach, and provides a quote from him about the types of 
photographs he prefers to post on Instagram. The record does not establish that local event 
announcements or his inclusion on the list of Instagram users compiled by The D Room reflected or 
contributed to his national or international recognition in his field. 
In sum, the record does not establish that a single published article in a major medium is consistent 
with the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. 
See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Even considering the totality of the other published materials, 
the Petitioner has not shown that his press coverage is indicative of a level of success consistent with 
being among "that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Relating to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of his experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary 
ability for this classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 3 The record reflects that the 
Petitioner has provided his services as 1 a panel jud e for the information technology competition 
held within the ~--~--~--~Contest" a'L_ ____ -r-___ __,_,.......,..........,..........,.............,~018; 
and (2) as an expert counc1 mem er at a preliminary regional stage.__ _________ __., for 
the I !Entrepreneurship Prize competition in 201 7. The Petitioner also 
provided evidence that he initiated and served as chairman of the jury for a "competition to identify 
the best organization among small businesses" which was held by the I I Regional Branch of 
"Opora Russia" in 2018. Finally, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner was a co-organizer ( along 
3 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the ve1y top of 
the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
4 
with the of a "Power of Team" .__ ____ --,--------,....------~----------,J 
competition held in th-..._ ___ _. in 2018. The information provided regarding the "Power of Team" 
competition indicates that its jury would include "5 reputable expert persons - representatives of 
business, government, sports." The evidence does not indicate whether the Petitioner participated as 
a judge for this competition or that his role as co-organizer involved judging the work of others in his 
field. 
While the evidence confirms the Petitioner's service as a judge in three of these four business-related 
competitions, it does not sufficiently support his claim that he has often been invited to judge the work 
of others as a result of his national or international reputation in the field. Two of the competitions in 
which he was involved are new regional competitions in which he is identified as the contests' initiator 
or co-organizer; he was not invited to participate as a judge in these competitions based on his national 
acclaim. The willingness of regional entities to co-sponsor or co-organize these competitions with 
him is acknowledged and may be indicative of his reputation as a business expert in I I 
but does not support a finding that he enjor national acclaim in his field. In addition, although the 
record indicates that thd~ ______ ..,. Entrepreneurship Prize draws from a national pool of 
competitors, the Petitioner was invited to judge a preliminary stage of the competition at the regional 
level. 
The Petitioner provided a letter froml I CEO ofl 
which held the Open Innovations start-up contest in 2018. H~e_e_x_p-la-in-s-th_a_t_t_h_e~I ------
Forum and Technology Show is an annual forum which provides "a platform for discussion, 
interaction and exchange amongst experts in leading edge technologies, scientists, top managers from 
Russian and foreign corporations, startups and state authorities."! !states that he personally 
selected the Petitioner as a panel member for the forum's 2018 start-up competition because he 
"needed an experienced and respected businessman to judge the contest." He also indicates that 
I I "chose only the people who have truly proven themselves to have extraordinary ability ... 
to help us select the winning teams to join our acceleration program as judges of the startup 
competition." I I's letter supports a conclusion that thel I competition was 
likely the most prominent competition in which the Petitioner served as a judge. However, his 
statement is not sufficiently detailed to establish that invitations to serve on its judging panels were 
limited to those nationally or internationally acclaimed business professionals in the small percentage 
at the very top of the field. The record does not contain, for example, profiles of others who served 
with the Petitioner on the judging panel for the start-up competition. 
Finally, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner garnered sustained national or international 
recognition or acclaim as a result of his participation as a judge in these competitions, all of which 
occurred within the two years preceding the filing of the petition. The Petitioner has not shown, for 
example, how his judging experience compares to others in his field or otherwise sets him apart from 
them. Without this evidence, he has not demonstrated that his service as a judge indicates that he is 
among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F .R. § 
204.5(h)(2). 
For similar reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his invitation to join the "speaker series" 
of the School of Business! I reflects that he enjoys sustained national or 
international acclaim. I I rector ofl I explains that the Petitioner's company, 
5 
.__ ___ ___.I "has been a trusted partner" to the school, which has, in tum "extended an invitation to 
[the Petitioner] to join our speaker series, an honor extended to the very few business and education 
professionals worldwide." I I notes that the organizing committee for the series has "very 
stringent criteria for selecting its featured speakers" and requires those selected to have "extraordinary 
abilities and achievements in their respective fields." He names several other individuals as members 
of the speaker series, noting that they are "highly regarded" and "legends" in their fields, but the record 
does not contain information about them. Further, althoug~ I states that the Petitioner 
accepted! 7s invitation to join its speaker series, the record does not identify or include evidence 
of an~~--~fevents in which the Petitioner participated as a speaker or the nature and scope of his 
involvement. Nor does the record contain additional background regarding! I or its speaker 
series in general, such that we could evaluate the level of national or international recognition that may 
be associated with participation in the series. The Petitioner's andl Is association with 
I land its speaker series supports a determination that he is recognized within some segments 
of the Russian business community, but there is insufficient evidence to establish how his participation 
in the series places him among that small percentage at the very top of his field. 
We have also considered evidence related to the Petitioner's publications, which include a book 4 titled 
I I and four articles in the Russian online edition of Forbes magazine published between 
I 12018 andl [ 2019. The record reflects that the Petitioner has also authored articles published 
on the Russian websites Vc.ru, RusBase (www.rb.ru), Invest-Foresight (www.if24.ru) and Standards 
and Quality (www.ria-stk.ru). The Director determined that the articles authored by the Petitioner did 
not qualify as scholarly articles under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and did not address 
this evidence in his final merits determination. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's authorship of articles, we emphasize that publication of one's written 
work does not automatically place an individual at the top of the field.5 We acknowledge that Forbes 
is a major medium, but the record does does not establish to what extent the Petitioner's four recent 
articles garnered him sustained national or international acclaim or that the publication of his work in 
Forbes reflects such acclaim. The Petitioner is credited in the articles' bylines as a "Forbes 
contributor," but the record does not contain any information or documentation about the magazine's 
standards, policies or procedures for accepting articles from contributors. We cannot determine, for 
example, that Forbes or the other referenced publications only accept articles from contributors who 
are nationally recognized figures in a given field. The record also lacks evidence that the Petitioner's 
articles have been cited or discussed by others in the field, or that they have generated a level of interest 
in the Petitioner and his work commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner also states that he became a "best-selling author" based on his publication of the book 
I I In support of this claim, he provides evidence that the book is available for purchase 
on the websites of three Russian booksellers. Some of the recommendation letters and expert opinion 
letters, including a letter from.__ _____ ___, of.__ _________ _. also refer to the 
"enormous success" of the Petitioner's book. However, the record does not contain any independent 
evidence, such as information about the number of books published or sold, evidence of the book's 
4 Other evidence in the record refers to the English translation of the book's title aJ land~I ____ ___. 
5 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (providing that publications should be evaluated to 
determine whether they were indicative of being one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
6 
critical success, or other information to establish that the Petitioner's work as an author has received 
acclaim at the national or international level. Some of the submitted recommendation letters refer to 
the Petitioner's written work as "informative" and emphasize that it is significant that his views on 
technology, management and start-up enterprises are deemed "worthy of dissemination" in business­
related publications, but this does not equate to a finding that his publications have earned him a place 
among the small percentage of individuals at the very top of his field. 
Overall, the Petitioner did not establish that his publication of a book and magazine articles in the few 
years preceding the filing of the petition sets him apart through a "career of acclaimed work." The 
statute requires the Petitioner to submit "extensive documentation" of his sustained national or 
international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Further, as noted, the Petitioner did not 
establish that the articles or his book have been cited or generated widespread discussion in the field, 
nor did it otherwise demonstrate a level of interest in his work commensurate with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the top of his field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
Lastly, as it relates to the Petitioner's service in a leading role withl I and the business 
contributions he has made as the company's leader, the record contains numerous letters of 
recommendation and expert opinion letters. 6 On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director's 
decision "ignored the overwhelming body of expert opinion evidence" previously submitted. 
With respect to the Petitioner's business-related contributions, the Director's decision reflects that he 
considered the submitted letters of recommendation. He specifically referenced letters fromD 
I I an~ !which discuss a horizontal management structure that the 
Petitioner developed or adapted, as well as I I a customer relationship management system 
designed for businesses that employ a horizontal management structure. 
With respect to the horizontal management structure, some of the submitted letters identify the 
Petitioner as the originator of this business model, while others state that he adapted this structure after 
studying successful American companies (such as Goof e, Facebook and Netflix) that were built on 
horizontal management. For example, the letter from I states that the Petitioner is "a 
pioneer of an innovative business management - he designed and formulated a tum-key horizontal 
business management structure based on the model he successfully developed atl I" In 
contrastJ I refers to the Petitioner as a "student and early adaptor of horizontal business 
management structure" but not as the creator or developer of this business model. 
Similarly J I a business coach who has partnered withl I explains that the 
Petitioner studied other successful organizations that use a horizontal management structure, based his 
company on this model and became "its most outspoken advocate and promoter in Russia." ~ 
I I states that the Petitioner's promotion of this type of non-traditional structure has "resonated 
throughout the Russian Federation," and notes that the Petitioner has taught seminars and led training 
sessions "to promote this revolutionary model" in over 40 cities. Collectively, the letters suggest that 
the Petitioner was among the first to promote a horizontal management structure as an alternative to 
the vertical, top-down management structure that is prevalent in Russia, but not that he is credited as 
6 Although we discuss only a sampling of this correspondence, we have reviewed all of the letters in the record. 
7 
the originator of this structure . Further, the fact that he promotes this management structure through 
his company and speaking engagements does not establish that his efforts have already significantly 
impacted the field to the extent that he has achieved national or international acclaim as a result of his 
business-related contributions. The supporting evidence does not corroborate, for example, how the 
Petitioner's business model has "resonated throughout the Russian Federation ." 
With respect tol Isl I product.I I credits the Petitioner with formulating 
designing it and delivering it to market, and notes that the product "has been very well received and 
adopted by some of the most innovative company's [sic] in our country."I I notes the 
"incredible success" of the product, and several of the other recommendation letters repeat similar 
language about the success of the product and its adoption by Russian companies. The record does not 
include independent evidence of the product's performance, its implementation by prominent 
companies, its recognition in the field, or the individual recognition that the Petitioner has received as 
a result of the product's success in Russia or elsewhere . 
Finally, we have considered an expert opinion letter froml , la professor a~._ _____ _. 
University, who states that he has reviewed the evidence submitted in support of this petition, 
including letters from six professional peers, 7 press related to the Petitioner and his business ventures, 
articles that he has authored, his judging activities, his leadership role with and his 
business-related contributions, and his recognition as "one of the 30 most famous citizen ___ _ 
Without referencing the statutory or regulatory requirements applicable to this classification, be 
concludes that the Petitioner "bas achieved a national and international reputation for outstanding 
achievements in business ." This conclusion appears to be based on the Petitioner's submission of 
evidence that satisfies at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, but does not included an analysis 
of how that evidence, when considered individually and collectively, supports a conclusion that the 
Petitioner is among that small percentage at the very top of his field. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 
l&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding a foreign national's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Furthermore, merely repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy a petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y . 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990). 
As acknowledged by the Director, the record supports a determination that the Petitioner and 
I lhave garnered some recognition in the field over the last several years, as evidenced by 
the media coverage discussed above, his invitations to serve as a judge in business competitions and 
to participate in speaking engagements, and the publication of his book and business articles. 
However, the record does not support his claims that bis work has made an impact in the overall field 
of business in Russia, or that he bas achieved sustained national or international acclaim based on bis 
achievements. While the evidence, all of which dates from the last few years, shows that the Petitioner 
is increasingly being recognized for his work in the Russian business community, particularly in the 
7 These include the letters o~~----1 ~I ___ __.l1l'---___ .....1l and three other letters which we have considered 
but did not specifically discuss above. 
8 
~---------_.the totality of the evidence does not establish that he is already among that 
small percentage at the top of his field. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields. 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 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. 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner has been granted 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. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Further, it must be emphasized that each petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record. 
In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information contained in 
that individual record of proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii). We are not required to approve 
applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior 
approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 
597 (Comm'r 1988); see also Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). 
Finally, 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 petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra 
v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 
9