dismissed EB-1A Case: Dressage

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 28, 2023 In Re: 28455766 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a dressage rider and trainer, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for this classification by meeting at 
least three of the ten evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on 
appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, a petitioner (or anyone on the 
petitioner's behalf) must establish that they: 
• Have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; 
• Seek to enter the United States to continue work in their area of extraordinary ability; and that 
• Their entry into the United States will prospectively substantially benefit the United States. 
Extraordinary ability must be demonstrated by evidence of the individual's sustained national or 
international acclaim, as well as extensive documentation that their achievements have been 
recognized in the field. Section 203(b)(l) of the Act. 
The implementing regulation further states that 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." It also 
sets forth a multi-part analysis. A petitioner can demonstrate international recogrnt1on of their 
achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If such evidence is unavailable, then they must alternatively provide evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten listed criteria, which call for evidence about other awards they may have received, 
published material about them in qualifying media, and their authorship of scholarly articles, among 
other types of evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2),(3). If a petitioner can show that one or more of the 
evidentiary criteria are not readily applicable to their occupation, then they may submit evidence that 
is comparable to the required evidence. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination, assessing whether the record shows that the 
individual possesses the acclaim and recognition required for this highly exclusive immigrant visa 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 l0) ( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a dressage rider who has been competing for more than 20 years, and who has also 
been training dressage horses and riders for several years. She intends to continue to compete in 
dressage events in the United States, as well as train horses and riders to compete in those events. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to her receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
awards in her field, and to published material about her in professional publications. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that she also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to original contributions of major 
significance to her field, and a leading or critical role for organizations having a distinguished 
reputation in the field. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that she meets 
at least three of the evidentiary criteria. 
Documentation ofthe alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
The Director determined that the evidence of the Petitioner's receipt of prizes or awards received as a 
dressage rider, particularly the 2020 USDF ~-----~and first place at the 2021 I I 
Dressage Festival, was sufficient to meet this criterion. While we agree that she meets this criterion 
as a rider, we base this conclusion on the evidence of her receipt of team and individual gold and silver 
medals at the I Ichampionships in 2006 and 2007, as well as the 2007 
I !trophy awarded by the United States Dressage Federation. 
2 
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 Petitioner submitted several articles about her and her work as a dressage competitor that were 
published on websites serving the equestrian sports industry. Many of these articles, particularly those 
posted on the blog website eurodressage.com, did not list an author, and therefore did not meet the 
requirements of this criterion. Others noted that they were press releases, prepared by an organization 
with which the Petitioner was affiliated in order to promote the organization and its members. Such 
marketing materials are not generally considered to be published material about a petitioner. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. However, the Petitioner 
also submitted articles published on the website of Chronicles of the Horse, a magazine devoted to 
equestrian sports, which did include all of the requisite information. Based upon this evidence, we 
agree with the Director that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
To satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only have they made original contributions, 
but that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. 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. See 
Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. 
In their decision, the Director acknowledged that the reference letters submitted by experts and others 
in the dressage field showed that the Petitioner has been successful as a dressage trainer, but concluded 
that the letters lacked specificity regarding the originality of her training methodology and its influence 
on the field of equestrian sports. They also noted the lack of documentary evidence in the record to 
substantiate the writer's statements. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the reference letters include details concerning her dressage 
training method and its originality, and that the Director erred by not giving the letters adequate 
consideration. She highlights sections of several of the letters, including the one written bye=]
I I a dressage judge. In describing the benefits and originality of the Petitioner's training 
techniquesJ Iletter in large part restates the Petitioner's own description of her training. 
Notably, the letter states that the Petitioner's techniques are original through their "linkage of anatomy 
and biomechanics (using the science of movement) to align, balance and harmonize the rider with the 
movements and character of each rider's horse so that the horse/rider are an aligned/coordinated pair 
and by explaining how to achieve the required result so that the rider can self-sustain the correct 
movements." Whereas the Petitioner writes the following in her statement: 
The originality of my training/schooling and coaching is centered on marrying the 
science of movement (biomechanics) to the specific movement pattern of each horse 
(as no two horses are the same such that no horse/rider combination is the same) and 
3 
biomechanically aligning the rider in the saddle with the horse's specific movement 
pattern to achieve a synchronized and harmonious unit when executing dressage 
movements. 
Another letter with similar language was signed by ._I____ ___.I board member of the Dressage 
Foundation. Her letter includes the following sentence: 
What is original and highly significant and beneficial is [the Petitioner's] ability to 
simultaneously ensure, (while riders are being instructed on the execution of the various 
dressage movements within the "scales of training") that each horse/rider pair are 
executing the dressage movements, with the correct biomechanical/balanced alignment 
such that the movement(s) being taught are, in fact, executed properly such that when 
the test movements are aggregated the pair's performance will be optimal. 
The similarities in style and grammar in these statements are unmistakable. As a general concept, 
when a petitioner has provided affidavits from different persons that contribute to the eligibility claim, 
but the language and structure contained within the affidavits is notably similar, the trier of fact may 
treat those similarities as a basis for questioning a petitioner's claims. 1 When affidavits contain such 
similarities, it is reasonable to infer that the petitioner who submitted the notably similar documents 
is the actual source from where the suspicious similarities derive. Cf Mei Chai Ye v. US. Dept. of 
Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007); Wang v. Lynch, 824 F.3d at 592. As a result, the letters 
possess significantly diminished probative value. In evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. at 376 (quoting Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989)). Here, the similarities 
between the Petitioner's statement and several of the reference letters, including I I and 
I I significantly reduces the evidentiary value of this evidence. 
We also note that many of the letters incorporate language from the regulations. In addition toD
C==:J statement that the Petitioner's abilities are "original and highly significant,"! I 
L_jwrites that the Petitioner's "methodology is of major significance in its originality." Repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 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, No. 95 CIV. 10729, *l, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). We also note that 
originality and significance are separate requirements of this criterion and must be met separately. 
In addition, despite the Petitioner's claims, I Iletter does not provide details on how the 
Petitioner uses biomechanical concepts in her training, nor does it substantiate the claim that the use 
of biomechanical concepts in dressage training is an original contribution by the Petitioner. Rather, 
the letter describes the desired results of those training techniques, and arrives at the conclusion that 
her methodology has "accelerated the dressage learning curve particularly the progressively more 
1 See Matter ofR-K-K-. 26 I&N Dec. 658, 665 (BIA 2015); Singh v. Garland. No. 19-60937, 2021 WL 5984797, at *2 
(5th Cir. Dec. 17. 2021); Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals. 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006); Wang v. 
Lynch. 824 F.3d 587. 592 (6th Cir. 2016); Dehonzai v. Holder. 650 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2011); Hamal v. U.S. Dep't of 
Homeland Security, No. 19-2534, WL 2338316, at *4, n.3 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021). 
4 
complex movements in the upper dressage levels as the results are proven" without describing the 
results to which it refers. 
The reference letters all indicate that the Petitioner has the ability to draw upon her classical training 
and experience as a rider to develop an individualized training regimen suited for each horse. In 
addition, they explain that she is able to clearly communicate to dressage riders that she trains how 
their own movements and positioning affect their horse's movements. While each such training can 
be considered to be unique to that horse and rider, as is stressed by the Petitioner, the letters do not 
establish that she has created an original method of training that has contributed to the broader dressage 
or equestrian community. Nor do they show that the results of her training have been so impactful 
that they have been of major significance to the field. I I founder of an equestrian training 
facility and the father of one of the Petitioner's trainees, writes that several of his students, including 
his daughter, have had significant improvements in their performances and results. I I a 
rider who competes in show jumping at the international level, explains that the Petitioner has helped 
to train her horses, and that she has seen her competition results improve as a direct result. Similarly,
I I an experienced equestrian who has been training with the Petitioner for six months, 
explains that the Petitioner was highly recommended to her, that the Petitioner has improved the 
conditioning of her horse, and that the Petitioner clearly explains how to im rove her riding. Beyond 
the reference letters, an article on the eurodressage.com website dated 2014 notes that the 
Petitioner coached a rider who placed fourth and sixth at a national competition in~---~ Florida. 
While this evidence shows that the Petitioner has contributed to the advancement of individual riders 
and horses under her tutelage, it does not establish that she has made a contribution of major 
significance to the overall field of equestrian sports, or more specifically dressage. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the Director should have considered her claim under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) that because there is no tangible proof of her training method, the reference 
letters analyzed above should be considered as comparable evidence. This argument was initially 
made in response to the Director's RFE, which states that "generally, an original contribution is 
research, techniques, inventions, or other intellectual property that the petitioner created and 
developed." While those types of documents may be submitted to show the originality of a claimed 
contribution by some petitioners, they are not applicable to all fields or all individuals seeking 
classification as individuals of extraordinary ability as the Director's statement suggests. The plain 
language of the regulations does not specify or limit the type of evidence that may be submitted in 
support of this criterion. However, for that same reason, the comparable evidence provision is itself 
not readily applicable to this criterion. Further, claims that reference letters should be accepted as 
comparable evidence, as the Petitioner does here, are generally not persuasive. We have instead 
considered those reference letters under the plain language of this criterion, as described above. 
For all of the reasons provided above, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has 
not established that she meets this criterion. 
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) 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must first establish that they have performed in either a leading or 
critical role for an organization or establishment. Evidence of a leading role should demonstrate that 
5 
the petitioner was a leader within the organization or establishment, or a division or department 
thereof. For a critical role, the evidence must show that the petitioner has contributed in a way that is 
of significant importance to the outcome of the organization's or establishment's activities. 
Second, the petitioner must establish that the organization or establishment for which they hold or held 
a qualifying role has a distinguished reputation. This may include, but is not limited to, the evaluation 
of factors such as the size and longevity of the establishment (but not exclusively), the scale of its 
customer base, and relevant media coverage. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), 
www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's role for .________ ~was leading or critical, but 
did not specify which applied to her role. The only evidence submitted in support of this aspect of the 
Petitioner's claim was a letter froml Ithe company's owner. He explains that the role played 
by the Petitioner in selecting young horses and training them for dressage competition at the rghestl 
levels is critical to the success of his company, and cites the example of one particular horse 
I I trained by her which was recognized as the top seven-year-old dressage horse in the United 
States. As such, we agree that the Petitioner has established that her role with I Iis ( or was) 
critical. 
Turning to the second element of this criterion, the distinguished reputation ofi Ithe 
Director determined that the evidence was insufficient. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the 
reputation ofi Ishould be judged by the success of its owner and namesakeJ I 
However, the record shows that I lis engaged not just in supporting the owner's career as 
a dressage competitor, but also offers rider and horse training and horse sales services. Therefore, its 
overall reputation in all of these activities will determine whether it has achieved distinction when 
compared to other such companies. 
Turning first to the evidence ofl Isuccess as a dressage rider, this consists of his own letter, 
pages from his company's website, and articles about him. Other than providing facts about himself 
and his company that he wishes to be considered, the letter has minimal weight in demonstrating that 
has a distinguished reputation, as reputation is the perception of others in the equestrian 
L...--------,-.J-----, 
sports field. writes that as a dressage competitor, he was selected to represent the U.S. at the 
2019 .______ __.Games, but was forced to withdraw after his horse sustained an injury. This is 
confirmed by an interview of him published on the website of Sidelines magazine on I I 2020. 
This and other articles confirm his wins at the Intermediate and Grand Prix levels, including national 
championships at the Intermediate level in 2019 and 2020. 
The record also shows that in addition to the success in training.______________ __.
I I have also won U.S. young horse championships with other horses. In addition, he has 
coached riders that have had national 
I 
success in the Young Rider and Grand Prix divisions. The 
totality of this evidence shows that lenjoys a distinguished reputation in the dressage field 
at the national level. We therefore disagree with the Director and conclude that the Petitioner meets 
this criterion. 
6 
B. Final Merits Determination 
The Petitioner has established that she meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria, so we will move 
on to the next part of the adjudication: the final merits determination. In a final merits determination, 
we examine and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine whether the petitioner has sustained 
national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor, and that their achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. Here, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that she meets that standard. 
As extraordinary ability is an elite level of accomplishment whose recognition necessarily entails a 
judgement call, it cannot be established through meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria alone. 
The final merits determination is the ultimate statutory inquiry of whether the applicant has 
extraordinary ability as demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim. Amin v. 
Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, at 395 (2022). 
As noted above, the Petitioner intends to remain in the United States to continue competing in dressage 
tournaments and events, while also continuing to train dressage riders and horses. In general, 
competitive athletics and coaching are not in the same area of expertise, as they rely upon different 
sets of skills. Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 917-8 (N.D. Ill. 2002). However, we acknowledge 
that many extraordinary athletes have gone on to become extraordinary coaches. Therefore, where a 
petitioner has established recent national or international acclaim as an athlete and has sustained that 
acclaim as a coach, we may consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of 
sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(A)(2), 
www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
As we acknowledged above when considering the Petitioner's lesser awards as a dressage competitor, 
she attained international success when competing at the Young Rider level. Her team and individual 
awards in 2006 also led to her selection to represent Canada at the.__ _________ __.Final, 
where she finished fourth overall out of twelve international competitors. However, the record does 
not show that she has sustained the same level of competition success since at the top Grand Prix level 
or in national and international competition. This evidence includes a certificate showing that the 
Petitioner was awarded with the 2020 ~-----~by the United States Dressage Federation 
"for achievement at: Intermediate I and/or Intermediate II and Grand Prix," as well as a Silver Medal 
for the same at the fourth level andl IBut the certificates are not accompanied by an 
explanation of their significance or the criteria by which they were awarded, and are thus of marginal 
evidentiary value in showing the Petitioner's standing or acclaim as a competitor in her field. 
In addition, the Petitioner states that she has competed in over 60 dressage events since 2014, and lists 
several first place results in dressage competitions at the Grand Prix and I llevels. 
However, the record lacks documentary evidence of most of these awards, with only a few being 
mentioned in articles on equestrian sports websites. Further, even if all of the awards were supported 
by documentary evidence, the record also lacks evidence showing that these wins, individually or 
cumulatively, help to show sustained acclaim or place the Petitioner at or near the top of her field as a 
dressage competitor. To the contrary, an article from the eurodressage.com website dated I 
D2017 that reports on the 2017 I I qualifier inl !North Carolina notes the Petitioner's 
Grand Prix win, but also that the competition "was unable to draw North American top riders." 
7 
I 
I 
Although the editor-in-chief of the eurodressage.com website writes in her letter that the Petitioner "is 
one of the best dressage riders in the history of the sport," this article from the website clearly 
undermines that assessment. We also note that while the Petitioner's win at the 201 71 
Dqualifier was also reported on other websites focused on equestrian sports, the record does not 
include media reports on any of the Petitioner's more recent claimed wins. Further, the record shows 
that the frequency of media articles reporting on her competition results drops dramatically from the 
time of her early career to more recent years, with the article noted above and others commenting on 
her absence from the top levels of competition and aspirations to greater achievements. While we 
acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic affected equestrian competitions as it did many other 
sports, the totality of the record does not establish that the Petitioner has enjoyed sustained acclaim at 
the national or international level as a dressage competitor, or that she is one of the small percentage 
of dressage competitors at the top of that field. 
Turning to the Petitioner's work as a dressage trainer, we have considered the reference letters 
submitted by her colleagues, employers, trainers and clients when determining the originality and 
significance of her training methods above. As we noted, this evidence was not sufficient to show that 
she has established an original method of training that has impacted or influenced the dressage or 
equestrian sports field to the required extent. In addition, the record shows that the Petitioner has 
trained riders who have gone on to have some success. Specifically,! Inoted that two of his 
own students, including his daughter, "obtained top of class scores due to [the Petitioner's] coaching." 
Others, such I I note the improvements in their horses under the 
Petitioner's training. And as previously noted, she submitted a single published article regarding one 
of her trainee's fourth and sixth place finishes in a national competition. While this evidence shows 
that her expertise is appreciated by her clients and has led to general improvements in both theirs and 
their horses dressage performance, it does not demonstrate that she has been recognized for her efforts 
as a trainer at the national or international level. 
Other evidence in the record is more specific regarding her acclaim and standing as a dressage trainer, 
particularly relating to her work atl l We acknowledge that her position with this company 
demonstrates that her expertise in dressage training has been acknowledged by her employer, an 
organization which has attained some level of distinction in the dressage community. This is 
demonstrated through the evidence of her work withl I who was ranked as a top young 
dressage horse in the United States. However, despite the submission of several articles which focus 
on the success ofl Iwe note that none of these articles mention the Petitioner and her 
contribution to his training as a dressage horse. While she has worked for several years as a trainer of 
dressage horses and riders, the evidence is insufficient to show that she has enjoyed sustained acclaim 
for this work or that she is one of the small percentage at the top of this field. 
Considering the totality of the evidence and the Petitioner's arguments on appeal, we conclude that 
she has not established that she meets the elite standards to be classified as a dressage competitor and 
trainer of extraordinary ability. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for those progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held that 
8 
even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her 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 she is one of the small percentage who have 
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). 
The record indicates that the Petitioner is currently in the United States in 0-1 nonimmigrant status. 
Although we acknowledge that this status relates to extraordinary ability, the record of proceeding for 
the approved nonimmigrant petition is not before us, and we cannot determine whether the facts in 
that case were the same as those in the present proceeding. Further, 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. 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9