dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25675486 Date: FEB. 28, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(1 )(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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award, nor did he demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility 
to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the 
Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we 
will dismiss the appeal. 
I. ANALYSIS 
After reviewing the entire record, we adopt and affirm the Director's ultimate determination with the 
added comments below. See Matter ofBurbano , 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday 
v. I.NS., 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting the practice of adopting and affirming the decision 
below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); 
Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) Uoining eight U.S. Courts of Appeals in holding that 
appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration" to the case). 
The Petitioner filed the initial petition with a large amount of evidence, but he did not adequately 
instruct the Director of how the material applied to any particular regulatory criterion. The Director 
issued a request for evidence and in response the Petitioner included some additional infonnation 
about awards as well as the criteria he was claiming, but that response still lacked a description of 
what evidence applied to those other criteria and how it demonstrated his eligibility. 
The Director denied the petition offering a brief analysis relating to the Petitioner's claimed one-time 
achievement and the lesser prizes or awards criterion, noting he did not satisfy the requirements for 
either of them. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates his claims of a one-time achievement and he again 
lists the criteria he claims to meet, but he only offers a broad statement that the Director was incorrect 
to deny his petition. Like the filing before the Director, the Petitioner's appellate filing lacks specific 
arguments relating to each regulatory requirement, the evidence that applies to each criterion, and an 
explanation of how that evidence satisfies each criterion. 
This is not an adequate basis to contest the Director's adverse decision on the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The reason for filing an appeal is to provide an affected party with the 
means to remedy what they perceive as an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact within a 
decision in a previous proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). By presenting only a generalized 
statement without explaining the specific aspects of the denial they consider to be incorrect, the 
affected party has failed to identify the basis for the appeal. Matter of Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354, 
354-55 (BIA 1986). We consider those issues (the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x)) 
waived on appeal. Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 l&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 
25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) and finding when a filing party mentions an issue without 
developing an argument, the issue is deemed waived). 
As it relates to the Petitioner's claimed one-time achievement, he asserts the "Hispanic American 
World Congress and the World Congress of Universities Award is only given to prestigious 
personalities who have left their mark on their work worldwide." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that a petitioner may submit evidence purporting to be a 
major, internationally recognized award. Congress intended to restrict this immigrant classification 
to "that small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the 
regulation permitting eligibility based on a one-time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, 
with only a small handful of awards qualifying as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. 
Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. 
Given that the House Report specifically cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time 
achievement, examples of one-time awards which enjoy major, international recognition may include 
the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and (most relevant for athletics) an Olympic Medal. 
The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement must be 
a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel Laureates, 
the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the 
nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large cash prize. 
While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time achievement 
without meeting all those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress that the award 
must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the foreign national's field as one of the top 
awards in that field. 
Although the Petitioner's identified award is an achievement, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
requires the one-time achievement to be "a major, intemational[ly] recognized award." The Petitioner 
did not present evidence, for example, establishing that this award is widely reported by international 
media, is recognized by the general public, or gamers attention comparable to other major, globally 
2 
recognized awards such as Academy Award winners. He relies on a letter from the issuing entity but 
does not offer adequate coverage of this award. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
his receipt of this award meets the requirements of a one-time achievement. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3