dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16775641 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 27, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an investment firm, seeks classification of the Beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary 
ability in the field of business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary met the initial evidence requirement of this classification through 
evidence of a major internationally recognized award or by meeting at least three of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3) . The Petitioner then filed a combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider, asserting that the Director did not consider all of the evidence in the record and submitting 
additional reference letters and other evidence. The Director dismissed both motions. 
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 )( 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 bas 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 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit 
comparable material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary is business executive with several years of experience in investment banking. His 
most recent employment abroad involved the management of an investment fund focused on 
agribusiness in Russia, and he served on the board of agribusiness companies. He is currently 
employed by the Petitioner in the United States as its Chieflnvestment Officer, and intends to continue 
in this role. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must show that he satisfies at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Beneficiary met one of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to published material written about him 
and his work as an investment executive. On appeal, 1 the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary also 
meets an additional five criteria. 2 After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the 
1 The Petitioner indicated on Form I-290B and in an accompanying letter that it would submit a brief within 30 days of 
filing its appeal. The appeal was submitted on June 23, 2020, and as of the date of this decision, an appeal brief has not 
been received by our office. Our decision will therefore be based upon the basis statement included on Form I-2908. 
2 The Petitioner's basis statement submitted on appeal does not challenge or address the Director's conclusion that the 
evidence did not establish that the Beneficiary met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We therefore consider this 
issue to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. AttJ' Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 
09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims to be 
abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has met the initial evidentiary requirement for the 
requested classification and is not eligible as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
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 claimed in its motion and in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), that 
honors received by two companies that employed the Beneficiary, 
andl lwere sufficient to meet this criterion. In his ~in-i-ti_a_l _d_e-c1-. s-io_n_,_t_h_e_D_i_r-ec_t_o_r_f_ou_n_d~ 
that the record did not include evidence of the Beneficiary's receipt of these awards, that they were 
granted based upon excellence in the field of business, or that they were nationally or internationally 
recognized. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the new evidence submitted with his motion established that the 
Beneficiary meets this criterion. This new evidence, which was listed but not analyz..,......_ .................... .., 
Director's most recent decision, included a reference letter from CEO of 
I I and what appear to be press releases concerning the awards for~ _____ __. He 
states that in 2007, the self-re ulatin organization National Association of Stock Market Participants 
NAUFOR awarded and three diplomas: I L 
.__ _______ __., and.__ ____________ ___, However, we note that the record 
does not include eviden f h se diplomas, and an apparent press release article posted on the website 
finrnarket.ru and dated 2007 only lists I I as a nominee in the three cate ories 
mentioned b with the headline stating that the winners of the L...--------r--,.J 
i-------1----.....1 will be announced onl I. This evidence does therefore not confirm 
~----' 's statement, asl lis not named in the article, and I l is not 
named as an award winner but a nominee. In addition, even if these awards had been confirmed, the 
Beneficiary's employer is named as a nominee, not the Beneficiary. 3 For all of these reasons, the 
record does not include evidence showing that the Beneficiary received the 
I I awards. ~-------~ 
The new evidence submitted on motion also included two articles, one dated I I 20 IO and 
another dated I I 2008, which narnel I Company as a "laureate" 
of the Russian Collective Investment Market corn etition. The 20 IO article states that the company 
won in the category, and the 2008 article indicates that it won 
in the ~------------' category. We again note that the evidence indicates that a 
company received these awards, not the Beneficiary. In addition, no information is provided regarding 
the source and publication of these articles. Neither lists an author, and there is no indication that the 
2010 article was posted on a website or was published in print form. The 2008 article was obtained 
from the website tatcenter.ru, but no information is provided about the nature of this website. We 
therefore conclude that this evidence does not show that the Beneficiary received either award. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2. AFM Update ADJJ-14. Page 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 
In addition, a letter was submitted with the motion which was signed byl I, CEO ofl~-~ 
c=]and a professional associate of the Beneficiary. He writes that the Beneficiary was a member of 
the board of directors ot1 I the managing company ofl I and that "thanks to the 
personal contribution of [the Beneficiary] and his team," the company's products were awarded the 
I I sign. This is similar to the statement made in a letter from I I I [ managing partner at a Russian investment and 
management fund, who indicates that both this designation and a ~-----------~ were bestowed onl las a result of the Beneficiary's work for the company. However, as with 
the awards discussed above, the record does not include evidence of any certificate, diploma or other 
physical evidence verifying thatl !received these awards. Also, these awards, like those above, 
are asserted to have been granted to the Beneficiary's employer, not to him personally. Finally, there 
is no indication in the record that these awards are granted based upon excellence in the field of 
business, or that they are nationally or internationally recognized. 
Turning to an award which the Petitioner asserted was given to the Beneficiary, we note that it did not 
specifically address its previous claim to this criterion based upon the his designation as a I I 
~------------~ on motion or appeal. However, we agree with the Director's 
determination in his initial decision that the evidence does not sufficiently establish that the 
Beneficiary received this award, or that it is nationally or internationally recognized. 
Accordingly, after review of the evidence submitted, we conclude that the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification 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 contends that the Beneficiary's membership in NAUFOR and his election as a board 
member of that association qualifies under this criterion. Concerning membership in the association, 
it submitted articles from several sources which supplement the information included in its regulations 
and articles of association, which were submitted in response to the Director's RFE. An article from 
the website opentrainer.ru states that in addition to being a resident of the Russian Federation and 
having a securities license from the Central Bank of Russia, members must "submit an application for 
membership, pay a contribution of 30,000 rubles, and also pay annual fees, which for various 
organizations range from 100 to 540 thousand rubles per year ... " Another article, from investlb.com, 
states that "contributions are differentiated depending on the available licenses." However, 
membership requirements based only on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education 
or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion, as such requirements do not constitute 
outstanding achievements. In addition, the record does not include information regarding the 
requirements for obtaining a securities license from the Central Bank of Russia. We therefore 
conclude that the Beneficiary's membership in NAUFOR does not meet this criterion. 
As for his service as a board member for this organization, the Petitioner refers again to the letter from 
I I who indicates that he was a member of the board of directors from 2004 to 2008, and 
4 
that Beneficiary served in the same role from 2005 to 2008.4 He writes that the board is elected every 
two years by members during the association's general meeting, and consisted of 22 members during 
this period. This evidence repeats information contained within NAUFOR's regulations, articles of 
association, and press release submitted in response the Director's RFE, and does not specify any 
outstanding achievements that board members must have completed in order to be nominated as a 
candidate or elected as a member of the board of directors. Although the Petitioner focused on the 
reputation of the association in his motion brief, this is not one of the elements found in the plain 
language of this criterion. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets 
this criterion through either his general membership or his election to the board of NAUFOR. 
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 
necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Director concluded that the record included evidence of published material which met this 
criterion. Upon review, we note that many of the articles which were submitted include quotations 
from the Benefici~but are not about him. For example, an article posted on the website 
agroinvestor.ru on 2015 titled 1 I quotes him as 
the managing partner of which owns the subject company. The Beneficiary explains the market 
conditions in China, but the article is not about him, but about the company's desire to enter the 
Chinese pork market. Another example was an article published in Vedomosti titled I I I , I' in which the Beneficiary is one of several interviewed regarding the raising of the minimum 
equity standard for management companies in Russia. Articles that are not about the petitioner do not 
meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at* 1, *7 (D. 
Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
One article submitted by the Petitioner is about the Beneficiary, as it focuses on him and his career in 
the field. An interview which appeared in the I I 2015 print edition ofl I as well as 
on the magazine's website, features him on the cover and includes a short biography, and goes into 
great depth regarding the investment plans ofl I As to whether! I is a professional or 
major trade publication or other major media, the Petitioner did not submit information about its print 
circulation, but included a website report from SimilarWeb. The report indicates tha~ I 
has a country rank of 32,227 and a category rank (Business and Industry) of 41,296, with over 89,000 
monthly visits. In comparison, the same report for vedomosti.ru shows a country rank of 315, with 
more than 11.2 million monthly visits. This evidence regarding! I is insufficient to 
establish that it is a major professional trade medium, given its ranking in the business category, or a 
major medium, especially when compared with vedomosti.ru. We therefore disagree with the 
Director's decision and conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
4 We note that an article posted on the website mfd.ru oJ l 2005 indicate~ that the ~enetkiary elected to the board 
ofl lalong with 16 others for a one-year term, and that I lis not listed as one of the 
other board members. This evidence, in addition to other evidence in the record regarding NAUFOR, is therefore 
inconsistent in several ways with! . Is statement about the Beneficiary's term of service as a NAUFOR board 
member, and we will consider only his two-year term beginning onl ~006 as evidenced by the submitted press 
release from NAUFOR's website. 
5 
Evidence that the alien has pe1formed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
In order to meet this criterion, an individual must establish that they served in either a leading or 
critical role, and that the organization or establishment for which they served in such a role had a 
distinguished reputation. If a leading role, the evidence must establish that the individual was a leader. 
A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role was leading. On the other 
hand, if the individual claims to have served in a critical role, the evidence must establish that they 
have contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or 
establishment's activities. Here, it is not the title of the individual's role, but rather their performance 
in the role that determines whether the role was critical. 5 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's role withe=] and its holdings I I andl I 
,___ ______ ___,as well as withl land I I and NAUFOR, were 
leading or critical for those organizations. In his initial decision, the Director acknowledged the 
recommendation letters in the record which described the Beneficiary's work and role, but concluded 
that they lacked sufficient detail to show that his role was leading or critical. On motion, the Petitioner 
submitted three additional reference letters in support of this criterion, while asserting that the 
previously submitted letters included details regarding the Beneficiary's role. 
Per a reference letter froml !Managing Partner 0-11----...,_d Chairman ot1 I's 
board of directors, the Beneficiary was a board member for both and its co orate parent 
I I as well as a managing partner for I I According to~--~-- ..... his duties 
in these roles included raising financing, researching suppliers and domestic and overseas partners, 
supervising merger and acquisition transactions, and financial management oft~e two comnanies. He 
states that under the Beneficiary's "close involvement in the management of_ }' three 
pork production and processing complexes were developed. In addition, "due to the personal 
contribution of [the Beneficiary] and his team,'i ~ecame the0 largest pork producer in the 
Russian Federation and earned the I I recognition. Copies of minutes of 
several meetings of the I I board of directors confirms that the Beneficiary took part in such 
decisions, and that he thus played a leading role for the company. However, the record does not 
include further information about the 1 I seal and its requirements or prestige 
which would demonstrate that it brought a distinguished reputation to the company. In addition, the 
record indicates that the award given to the company which is translated as both 1 t' and 
I I is given to "consumers of electricity from the regional energy retail companies of the 
Inter RAO Group," but also does not include further information which show that it is a prestigious or 
coveted award in the industry. Although the Petitioner has shown that the Beneficiary played a leading 
role forl I it has not established that the company enjoyed a distinguished reputation. 
Turning more broadly to the Beneficia 's role for~andl I, the Petitioner also submitted 
a reference letter fro irector oft I He writes that he worked with the ~~"---~---.----~ 
Beneficiary in his role as head of 's audit committee and member of its board of directors 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14. P. 10 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
6 
from 2011, and that the Beneficiary was "instrumental to Os growth." I I states that the 
Beneficiary's "expertise in investment management, financial control and agribusiness has been 
invaluable to growing the holclinscompanr- .. " However, he does not describe with sufficient detail 
how the Beneficiary ledc=] or_ _ or played a critical role in the successes en·o ed by these 
companies. Similarly, a letter fro I President and CEO of also does 
~ovide details to support his assertion that the Beneficiary played a critical role for.__ __ _. and 
L_J nor does he explain how he gained personal knowledge of the internal decisions and processes 
of these companies. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's role forl lthe Petitioner also references letters from the 
Beneficiary's business associates who state that they are familiar with this aspect of his career in 
business. I I chairman of the board of I I confirms that the 
Beneficiary served as head of the bank's investment division and also as General Director of0 
.__ _____ _.lfrom 20066 to January 2008. He writes that the Beneficiary's duties in these positions 
included development of business plans for these businesses, organizing and coordinating the issuance 
of the bank's Eurobonds, and developing and introducing index-based funds and portfolio 
management products. He also notes the award nominations for .__ ______ ~ an~ I 
,__ __ _.I which include six regional award nominations in addition to the three national nominations 
discussed above. 
A very similar letter was written b~ I Se;ccn=io:;..:r'--V~ic:;..:e;....;P~r:;..:e=s=id=e=n=t....;;a.;.;.tl..,..___,.----~~H=e~n~o~te=s...., 
that the Beneficiary "made it possible to establish ofl lan~.___ ______ ____.I 
from the ground up ... ," noting that the two companies employed 150 workers at the end of 2007 and 
managed assets of more than 10 billion rubles. Based on these reference letters, evidence regarding 
the nomination of I land its subsidiary for regional and national awards, and other 
evidence regarding the company, we conclude that the Beneficiary's employment with this company 
meets the requirements of this criterion. 
In addition, the Petitioner also focused in its motion on the Beneficiary's service with NAUFOR, as 
supported by the reference letter from I I and other evidence about the organization. As 
previously noted, the evidence shows that the Beneficiary was elected as a board member for a two­
year term beginning onl I 2006. I ) ~ states that the Beneficiary was a member of 
two subcommittees, which he indicates "developed a number of the most important operation 
standards for brokerage, dealer and management companies" as well as "regulatory documents for the 
stock market." He goes on to indicate that these standards "formed the basis for federal legislation on 
securities and markets." However, he does not indicate that the Beneficiary served in a leadership role 
as one of 22 members of NA UFO R's board of directors, nor does the letter or other evidence in the 
record provide specifics about his role in the drafting of standards and regulatory documents for the 
securities field. 
Based upon the evidence of the Beneficiary's role withl land~------~I we 
disagree with the Director's decision and find that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
6 An employment contract between~! _____ ~land the Beneficiary, submitted in response to the Director's RFE, 
is dated August I 0, 2006. 
7 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
In order to show that an individual meets this criterion, the evidence must establish that their salary is 
high relative to others working in the field working in the same occupation and location. 7 The 
Petitioner submitted translated copies of Form 2-NDFL, Statement oflncome of an Individual, for the 
years 2013, 2014, and 2015. Those forms indicate that in those years, the Beneficij received a salary 
from thel I and! 0 J , , 0 J O ~ of approximately 
P 9.3M, P 11.6M, and P 11.2M, respectively. As previously noted, the record indicates that he served 
as a member of the I I board of directors during this period, as well as a managing partner of 
I J ,vhich was the main shareholder o~ I 
Initially, the Petitioner submitted a salary report from payscale.com as a reference. That report, dated 
October 8, 2019, showed the annual salary range for a CEO inl I with 10 years of experience. 
It indicated that the median salary for this position and location was P3M, and that 75% of those earned 
less than Pl IM. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a second report from 
salaryexplorer.com. This report indicated that the median salary for CEOs in Russia was 
approximately P2.65M, and that salaries at the 75th percentile were approximately P3.42M. It also 
indicated that inl lthe average CEO salary was P3.02M, but did not provide figures for the 
high or low end of the salary range. 
The Director found in his initial decision that this evidence was insufficient to show that the 
Beneficiary meets this criterion. On motion, the Petitioner referred to the report from 
salaryexplorer.com as new evidence, despite having already submitted it with its RFE response, and 
did not otherwise present new arguments. Upon review, we note that both salary reTorts indicate that 
the Beneficiary's salary in these three years was well above average for a CEO in_ I but are 
inconsistent regarding the highest salaries for this position, with the 75% salary from payscale.com 
greatly exceeding the maximum national salary from salaryexplorer.com of approximately P 4M, and 
the payscale.com report not reflecting the salaries of top CEOs. We also note that it is not apparent 
whether the amounts paid to the Beneficiary byl I included salary for his service as a board 
member alone or also included his pay as a managing partner ofl I In addition, the different 
"income codes" displayed on the Forms 2-NDFL are not explained, which calls into question whether 
the forms show both salary and bonuses and other forms of remuneration which are not accounted for 
in the submitted salary reports. Therefore, after review, we agree with the Director conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Beneficiary's salary was 
high compared to other similarly situated individuals in the field of business. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Beneficiary 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 Beneficiary, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
7 See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional golfer's earnings versus 
other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's 
salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL 
defensive player to salaiy of other NHL defensemen). 
8 
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). 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 
As noted above, although we find that the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary meets the 
criterion relating to his leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation, we 
withdraw the Director's conclusion that he meets the criterion regarding published material about him. 
In addition, we conclude that he also does not meet three additional criteria. Although the Petitioner 
asserts that the Beneficiary also meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) relating to his 
contributions of major significance to the field, 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. 8 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 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. 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 that 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). 
8 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). 
9 
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. 
10