dismissed EB-1A Case: Ecology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 18459599 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 23, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an ecology thought leader and activist, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements of this classification through either 
evidence of a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award) or meeting three of 
the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
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 has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part 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. 20 l 0) 
( 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). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the founder of a non-profit organization in his native I l .__ ______ __. I ~ through which he romotes his theories relatin to climate chan e. The record 
shows that these theories relate to th and 
that he also uses his foundation to promote his claims to have predicted the occurrence of 
solved "the mystery of the I I" and decoded hidden messages in =====:-=.,....A-lt-ho_u_g_,h 
he initially made vague references to wildfires in the Western United States, in responding to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) the Petitioner stated that he intends to establish his non-profit 
organization in the United States to "work[ing] on environmental education and ecological awareness, 
primarily with Hispanic communities, to stop climate change." 
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 Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of these 
evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the evidentiary criteria relating to 
published material about him and his work in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, his original contributions of major significance to his field, and his leading role for 
organizations having a distinguished reputation. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we 
find that he does not meet the requisite three evidentiary criteria. 
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) 
In order to meet the requirements of this criterion, material must be published in a professional or 
major trade publication or other major media, and must be about a petitioner and relate to their work 
in their field of expertise. In addition, the evidence must include the title, date, and author of the 
2 
material, and evidence in a foreign language must comply with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(3) relating to full English language translations. 
As noted by the Director in his decision, the Petitioner submitted several articles which were published 
in a variety of mainly Argentine publications, many of which appeared to be about him and his work 
with th~ I However, in many cases the English translations which accompanied 
these articles clearly did not include a translation of the entire original foreign-language material, and 
in all cases the translator's attestation did not verify that the translations were complete and were 
therefore not compliant with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). As such, he concluded that this material could 
not be considered in the analysis of this criterion. Other deficiencies in this evidence were also 
identified by the Director in both his RFE and his decision to deny, including missing information 
about the name of the publication, the date of publication and the author, which in many cases was 
represented by hand-written notes which could not be verified. In addition, the Director concluded 
that the information regarding these publications was not sufficient to show that they were one of the 
qualifying types of media under this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner initially focuses on articles which appeared in the newspapers El Liberal and 
La Prensa, and submits new versions of some previously submitted articles together with new English 
translations. We note that other articles were also resubmitted with compliant English translations and 
translator certificates in response to the Director's RFE. An article in La Prensa published oH I 
P 
2015 is about the 201tj !conference which was organized by the Petitioner and held in 
._ ______ _,,[ Uruguay and includes information about and comments from the Petitioner. He also 
submits a new letter from El Liberal which identifies the author of three previously submitted articles 
published in 2012 and 2013. Each of these three articles are about the Petitioner and his work as a 
climate change activist, and each is accompanied by a complete English translation and translator 
certification. 
Regarding the issue of whether these newspapers are professional or major publications or other major 
media, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director ignored evidence regarding the status and 
circulation of these two newspapers. 1 This evidence includes a translated excerpt from El Boletin 
Express, which the evidence indicates is published by an Argentinean organization called "IVC", 
listing circulation data for several Argentinean publications as of September 2012.2 In addition, an 
article from pressreference.com printed on March 12, 2020 provides information on the press market 
in Argentina as well as circulation figures for some publications. The IVC publication lists the 
circulation of El Liberal as approximately 25,000 on Sundays and 24,000 during the week, which is a 
fraction of the circulation listed for other publications such as Clarin (600,000 and 270,000) and La 
Nacion (356,000 and 176,000). In addition, the article from pressreference.com does not list this 
newspaper under the heading 'Top Ten Daily Newspapers" or in its list of "the 10 largest national 
newspapers." 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (stating that evidence of published material 
in professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications about the alien should establish that the 
circulation ( on-line or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics and show who the intended audience of the 
publication is, as well as the title, date and author of the material.) 
2 The organization's website, www.ivc.org.ar, indicates that it is the Circulation Verification Institute and is "the most 
important organization in the advertising market in our country. The media are associated with the IVC so that a 
professional organization supports their circulation figures ... " 
3 
Turning to La Prensa, while the above evidence does list that newspaper as one of the ten largest in 
Argentina, the Petitioner indicated in his initial submission that this article appeared in a Uruguayan 
publication of the same name, and has not submitted information regarding its circulation. Although 
figures regarding website visitation were submitted, the Petitioner does not explain how these show 
www.seminariolaprensa.com to be a major medium, and we note that the figures are far below those 
shown in reports about other websites in the record. Therefore, as the Petitioner has not claimed that 
either newspaper qualifies as a professional or major trade publication, and the evidence does not 
establish that they qualify as major media, none of these materials qualify under this criterion. 
Other materials submitted with proper translations and translator certifications, both in response to the 
Director's RFE and on appeal, do not qualify under this criterion for a variety ofreasons. Articles in 
Critica De La Argentina, La Columna and Uno are about the Petitioner and his work, but the record 
does not include information about them which includes circulation figures, and thus does not establish 
that they are major media. 
The Petitioner also refers to evidence relating to a radio program hosted by the Petitioner,_! ____ _. 
I I in particular two reference letters. The first was from the General 
Manager of I I a radio station inl I who indicates that the station has 
transmitted the Petitioner's program since 2011. While the letter describes the program as "one of the 
most listened by the audience," no information to support this statement is provided. Another letter 
regarding this program was written byl I who states that he is the program's artistic 
producer. He describes it as focusing on "environmental, new technologies, ecology, healthy leaving 
[sic] and the best music of all times," and claims that it is broadcast "in 225 radios [sic] in 16 countries 
around the world." He also provides a list of radio stations which air the program, but the record 
includes confirmation and information about very few of the listed stations. In addition to the letter 
froml I an undated article in Seminario La Prensa, which is also not accompanied by a 
proper translator's certification, lists only 12 radio stations which broadcast the Petitioner's program. 
No farther evidence is provided regarding these stations, and the Petitioner has therefore not 
established that I I is or was published or broadcast on a major medium. In addition, 
we note that while the record shows that the Petitioner is the executive producer and host of this 
program, and that it focuses on the~---------~ regarding climate change, it has not 
been established that the program is about the Petitioner. 
The second letter highlighted by the Petitioner on appeal came from! I Chief of 
Content for I I in Argentina. He states in a letter dated June 1, 2015 that I I in 
I !Argentina has been broadcasting I since 2010, describing this weekly program 
~icro." No farther information is provided in this letter or elsewhere in the record aboutl I 
l___Jorl I As with the Petitioner's radio program, the evidence does not demonstrate that 
this "micro" is or was broadcast on a major medium, or that it was about him and his work. 
The Petitioner also included what appears to be a screenshot from the Y ouTube channel of D I I showing him being interviewed regarding al I race inl I However, as 
with the other materials initially submitted, this evidence is accompanied by an incomplete transcript 
of the interview in English, as well as an improper translator's certification. In addition, even if we 
were to consider the content of this transcript as being about the Petitioner and his work, he has not 
4 
established thatl I is a major medium in Argentina. The record includes a partially 
translated media kit that appears to combine viewership statistics across multiple platforms and social 
media, but does not include a basis by which to determine that these statistics show thatl I 
is a major medium. 
After review of the totality of the evidence submitted in support of this criterion, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established that he meets the criterion. 
B. Additional Criteria 
As we noted above, the Petitioner also asserts on appeal that he meets two additional criteria. 
However, since we have concluded that he does not meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
he cannot meet the requisite three evidentiary criteria to establish that he satisfies the initial evidentiary 
requirement for this classification, and we therefore reserve these issues. 3 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, 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, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and 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). 
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. 
3 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). 
5