dismissed EB-1A Case: Cricket

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19808233 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR . 8, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability as a cricket official and 
administrator. 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which he must meet at least three . In addition, 
the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish his intent to continue to work in his area 
of expertise and that he would substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner ' s burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de novo review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences , arts, education , business , or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work 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 endeav or." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( h)(2). The implement ing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstraterecognition 
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); Rifai v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner claims that e began officiating cricket in India in 2000 and d has been a member of the 
umpiring committee at the - inl North Carolina since 2012.1 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or demonstrated 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 did not fulfill any of the criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains eligibility for four 
criteria. After reviewing all of the presented evidence, the record does not establish that the Petitioner 
meets the requirements of at least three criteria. 
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). 
In order to satisfy this criterion, a 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. 2 The Petitioner contends that he meets this criterion based 
on his membership with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) Panel of Scorers and 
references evidence from BCCI indicating that he "passed the Examination for Statisticians and 
Scorers." In addition, he points to a letter from I I interim BCCI, who confirmed 
1 The record reflects that the PetitionerreceivedH 1B nonimmigrantvisa classification reserved for individuals to perform 
services in a specialty occupation, to work as an Oracle solution architect for in Texas. In 
addition, the Petitioner is the beneficiary of an approved second preference immigrant petition as a member of the 
professions with an advanced degree filed byl Ito work as a senior business analyst. 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manua!F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov /policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing an 
example ofadmission 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). 
2 
the Petitioner's membership with BCCI' s Panel of Scorers and stated that "BCCI formulates the panel 
for each category of match officials like BCCI Panel of Scorers, Umpires, Video Analysts and Match 
Referees," and "[e]ach Panel consists of the individuals who have attained the highest level of 
expertise and achievement in the respective category of match officials." In addition, he provided 
BCCI's "Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations" and amendments to the bylaws 
highlighting: 
The function of the Umpires Committee shall be to standardize umpiring throughout 
India and to draw up and maintain a panel of Umpires to officiate matches in India and 
classify them into Elite Panel, All India Panel and Ranji Trophy Panel of Umpires, 
according to the merits of the Umpires (subject to reclassification), as per criteria 
worked out by the Committee. The committee shall hold examinations from time to 
time for this purpose. 
The Petitioner did not establish that his membership with BCCI Panel of Scorers meets this regulatory 
criterion. Neither BCCI's rules and regulations mention the membership or eligibility requirements 
for the Panel of Scorers, nor did the Petitioner highlight or indicate where they exist in his 
documentation. 3 Instead, the Petitioner references BCCI's rules and regulations relating to umpire 
panels rather than scorer panels. Moreover, although I I claimed that "[e Jach Panel consists of 
the individuals who have attained the highest level of expertise and achievement in the respective 
category of match officials," the evidence does not corroborate his claims. Furthermore, neitherO 
nor the Petitioner demonstrated that nationally or internationally recognized experts judge the 
outstanding achievements for membership with the Panel of Scorers. In fact, the Petitioner asserts 
that "[p]]assing these examinations is the key event," reflecting that membership is based on passing 
examinations rather than by being judged by recognized national or international experts for 
outstanding achievements. 4 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills 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 spec[fication for which classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
This regulatory criterion requires a petitioner to show that not only has an individual been invited to 
judge the work of others, but also that the individual actually participated in the judging of the work 
of others in the same of allied field of specialization. 5 The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion 
based on that he "served as a judge of USA Cricket exhibitions in the United States in the role of an 
umpire" and references evidence indicating his designation as an umpire for cricket matches in the 
United States. The record contains background information regarding cricket, including the roles of 
3 Page 14 of BCCI 's rules and regulations reflect that "'Match Official' includes Umpires, Match Referees, Observers, 
Statisticians, Ground Staff and Scorers so appointed by the BCCI or a Full Member from time to time," indicating separate 
and distinctpositions and responsibilities within BCCI. 
4 The record also contains evidence showing that the Petitionerpassedscreeningtests to serve on umpire panels. However, 
the Petitioner did not establish that membership with BCCI's umpire panels require the judging of outstanding 
achievements by recognized national or international experts rather than passing examinations. 
5 Sec 6 USCJS PolicyManual,supra, atF.2(B)(2). 
3 
cricket umpires. Specifically, "[t]he umpires indicate no balls, byes, leg byes, wides, boundaries and 
sixes to the scorers, who keep a running total of the runs scored, while the match referee rules on 
disciplinary matters," and "[t]he third umpire uses TV replays to rule on run outs, stumpings, whether 
a ball has hit the ground before beingcaughtorwhen itis unclear if the ball has crossed the boundary."6 
Again, this regulatory criterion requires a petitioner to show that he has acted as a judge of the work 
of others in the same or an allied field of specialization. Here, the Petitioner's evidence does not 
reflect the duties of a cricket umpire involve evaluating or judging the work of other cricket judges or 
the skills of cricket competitors as opposed to enforcing the rules of a match and ensuring 
sportsmanlike competition. See Victorov v. Barr, 2020 WL 3213788, at *8 (C.D.C.A. Apr. 9, 2020) 
(finding a rational connection between the regulation's phrase "judge of the work of others" and the 
AAO's distinction between that and rule enforcement). Without further documentation, such as 
evidence that he exercised his judgment in choosing the ultimate winner, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently shown that the role of a cricket umpire includes participating as a judge of the work of 
others consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies the criteria relating to memberships and judging. 
Although the Petitioner claims eligibility for two additional criteria on appeal, relating to published 
material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we 
need not reach these additional grounds because the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary 
requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We also need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we reserve these 
issues. 7 
N eve1iheless, 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 those progressing toward the top. 
SeeMatterof Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994)(concludingthatevenmajorleague 
level athletes do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of 
"extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding 
that the extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of 
Homeland Sec. (Hamal 11), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) 
( determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). 
See also Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at *1 
(D.D.C. June 3, 2020) (citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published 
theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that"[ c ]ourts have 
found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. 
6 See Exhibit A6 submitted at initial filing. 
7 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 o/L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, n.7 
(declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4 
Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous baseball players in 
Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). 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. HR 
Rep. No.101- 723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990);see also section203(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. Seesection203(b )(l)(A)oftheActand 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Therecorddoesnotcontain 
sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 8 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. 
8 As the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l )(A)(i) of the Act, we need not 
consider whether he intends to continue to work in his area of expertise under section 203(b)(l )(A)(ii) of the Act and 
whether he will substantially benefit prospectively the United States under section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
Accordingly, we reserve these issues. See Bagamasbad,429 at25-26;sccalsoL-A-C-,26 I&NDec. at516,n.7. 
5