dismissed EB-1A Case: Embroidery

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23173147 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC . 19, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an embroiderer in the field of I embroidery, seeks classification as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
a brief and contends that he meets eight out of ten criteria and has sustained the required acclaim and 
has risen to the very top of his field. 
The Administrative Appeals Office reviews the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of 
Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). The petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. See Section 291 of the Act; Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . 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. 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 Petitioner is an embroiderer in the field of I embroidery. The Petitioner has not 
indicated that he received a major, internationally recognized award. Therefore, he must satisfy at 
least three of the ten alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner 
claims to have satisfied eight of these criteria, which will be discussed below. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met only two criteria, relating to the scholarly articles and 
display criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets six other criteria, relating to the 
lesser recognized prizes or awards, membership, published materials, judging, original contributions, 
and leading or critical role criteria. Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director's 
determination regarding the display criterion but do not agree with the Director's determination 
regarding the scholarly articles criterion. We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three 
criteria. 
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 Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. We agree 
with the Director's determination. A review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the 
Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) for the reasons outlined below. 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion based on the receipt of: (1) UNESCO Award of 
Excellence for Handicraft Products in 2012; (2) The Best Artisan Award of hnitiative) in 
2012; (3) The Best Artisan of the Year Award of !(Initiative) in 2011; and (4) The People's 
Embroidery Award in 2018. 
2 
The Petitioner submitted a certificate issued as "the participant of the project - Quality Mark of 
craftmanship production in Central Asia" by UNESCO in 2012. The Petitioner also submitted 
information about UNESCO Award of Excellence in 2012 from the UNESCO website, which 
indicates that the UNESCO Award of Excellence was awarded to 188 handicraft products out of 407 
entries by artisans from Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The 
website also indicates that the A ward of Excellence program aims to ensure the continuation of 
traditional knowledge and skills and the preservation of cultural diversity in the region. 
The Petitioner submitted diplomas of 'The Best Artisan at Regional 
Initiative - 2012 Contest" and "The Best Artisan the Year at Municipal Level of 
__ ___,(Initiative) - 2011 Contest" issued to him b the President of the 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter fro Chairman of the Board of the 
Chamber of Commerce and Industry in ___ Region, which states that the criteria for selecting 
winners are the participant's (1) contribution to his or her sphere in the form of original goods and 
services, (2) participation in international exhibitions and expo, and (3) providing jobs. 
The Petitioner submitted a diploma of "The People's Embroidery 2018 
Creator" by the State Committee for Tourism Develo ment of the 
- The Best Embroidery 
and 
The I I Regional Headquarters of 
Petitioner also submitted a letter from I the Head of _______ in _ 
Region, which states that the People's Embroidery 2018 contest 1s open only to members of 
I I 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, contending that the awards are given for excellence in the 
field of endeavor and that they are internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. However, the evidence does not establish that these awards are given for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. The 2012 UNESCO Award of Excellence was given to 188 handicrafts out of 407 
entries to ensure the continuation of traditional knowledge and skills and the preservation of cultural 
diversity in the region. In addition, the record does not contain national or international media 
coverage or other sufficient evidence demonstrating that the UNESCO award is nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field of endeavor. With respect to the I award, participants 
must show that they contributed original goods and services, that they participated in international 
exhibitions and exports, and that they provided jobs. This selection criteria do not establish that the 
I laward is given to recognize excellence in the field of endeavor. The People's Embroidery 
2018 contest was open only to members of _______ Since this award is limited to 
members of the association and participants of the contest in 2018, the record does not reflect that this 
People's Embroidery award is nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. 
Submitting evidence of the Petitioner's receipt of awards is insufficient to meet the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) without documentary evidence reflecting that the prize or 
award is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. Accordingly, 
the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
3 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication 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 Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. We agree 
with the Director's determination. A review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the 
Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) for the reasons outlined below. 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion based upon his membershi in the 
I of Artisans, Craftsmen, and Folk Artists of the The record 
inclu des a membership certificate and letters fro__ m the Head of 
in __ Region. The letters state that the association is open only to "highly skilled masters who 
are among the few on top of their fields and requires outstanding achievements of its members, as 
judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts in the respective field of folk art." The 
letters provide that the Petitioner's membership was recommended by I I and 
________ The record contains resumes forl and 
While the letters froml I contain language that mirrors the regulation, neither the author 
nor the Petitioner has pointed to sufficient evidence in the record that supports the claim that the 
organization requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. Specifically, the record lacks the entity's constitution, bylaws, or other official 
documents, detailing its membership selection process and criteria. Without additional evidence that 
accurately and credibly explains the association's membership requirements or selection process, 
conclusory statements are insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner meets this criterion. See 17 5 6, 
Inc. v. United States Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990) (noting that we need not accept 
primarily conclusory statements). On appeal, instead of submitting additional evidence to corroborate 
his claims, the Petitioner submits a brief: repeating that the association requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts. 
Moreover, although the record includes resumes for I I and I I the 
individuals whoJ asserts, recommended the Petitioner for membership in thel I I I the documentation is insufficient to show that they qualify as national or international 
experts in the field. I I resume indicates he was the head of two art museums and was a 
professor of museology and art history inl I and that his "scholarly articles and brochures" 
include two works on I embroidery. I I resume indicates she teaches tour 
guides inl land is a member of the organizing committee of thel I Festival. The 
resumes are not corroborated and insufficient to confirm that the individuals are qualifying experts in 
the field. Similarly, although! !claims thatl I and I I are 
nationally recognized experts, he has not explained the basis of his knowledge or offered sufficient 
evidence in support of his statement. Finally, even assuming the submitted evidence demonstrated 
that I I andl I are experts in the field, comparing them to other members of 
the association is insufficient to meet this criterion. While the individual members of the association 
may be highly qualified, the record does not demonstrate that membership inl I requires 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
4 
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
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 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. We agree 
with the Director's determination. A review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the 
Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) for the reasons outlined below. 
The Petitioner submitted an article he wrote about his journey as al !embroiderer, which was 
published in the magazine Tasvir. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires that the published material be "about" the Petitioner relating to his work in the field for which 
classification is sought. Articles authored by the Petitioner are not articles about the Petitioner relating 
to his work. The Petitioner also submitted an article about I I embroidery in America and the 
Petitioner as al I embroiderer residing in the United States, which was published in the 
newspaper Our Home Minnesota. The Petitioner also submitted an article about 2018 
Embroidery Competition in I which was published in the magazine Zar Tasvir Plus. This 
article in Zar Tasvir Plus briefly mentions the Petitioner, a young embroiderer from I as the 
first-place winner at the competition. Although the Petitioner is mentioned in the article, this article 
is not about the Petitioner relating to his work, but about the competition. 
The Petitioner submitted one published article about himself as al I embroiderer relating to his 
work but did not demonstrate that Our Home Minnesota as well as any of the other publications, Tasvir 
and Zar Tasvir Plus, are major media. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, contending that the 
submitted articles were published in major media inl I The record contains information 
about magazine Tasvir from thel I website, which indicates that the circulation of the magazine 
is 40,000 copies. The record also contains a letter from the Chief Editor of the newspaper Our Home 
Minnesota, which states that the circulation of the newspaper is 4,000 printed numbers. The Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that based on the circulation data, these publications qualify as major media. 
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner does not meet 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 class[fication is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. We agree 
with the Director's determination. A review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the 
Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) for the reasons outlined below. 
5 
The record includes a letter from th the Head of _______ in ___ 
Region, which states that the association thanks the member of the association, the Petitioner, for 
participating at its 2011 I !exhibition fair. It notes that the Petitioner has participated in 
national and international exhibitions many times with his artistic products. However, the letter does 
not assert or establish that the Petitioner participated as "a judge" of the work of others in the field. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter froml I the Head of ________ in 
I !Region, which states that the association thanks the Petitioner for "his help in determining 
craftsmen, artisans and painters, who were invited" to its 2014 ______ exhibition. This 
letter does not state in what manner the Petitioner provided help in determining what artists were 
invited to the exhibition. This letter does not establish that the Petitioner participated as "a judge" of 
the work of others in the field. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, 
either on a panel or individually as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). There is no evidence 
demonstrating that the Petitioner actually judged the artwork and made final selections for the exhibition, 
rather than, for example, merely assisting with general administrative functions of the exhibition. 
Moreover, there is no documentary evidence showing the specific exhibitions judged by the Petitioner, 
the dates of his participation, and the names of the artists whose work he specifically selected. Merely 
submitting a statement asserting that the Petitioner judged the work of others without evidence 
showing who he judged and their field of specialization is insufficient to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. On appeal, instead of submitting contemporaneous documentary evidence of the Petitioner's 
participation as a judge for the 2014 I I exhibition sponsored by I the 
Petitioner submits a brief: repeating that the Petitioner served as a judge of the work of others at major 
exhibitions and showcases. There is no documentary evidence showing the Petitioner's specific 
assessments and the names of the artists whose work he evaluated. 
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. We agree 
with the Director's determination. A review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the 
Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) for the reasons outlined below. 
The Petitioner submitted letters froml I a K-12 art teacher, and _______ 
a fine artist and gallery coordinator. I and I I state that they are familiar with the 
Petitioner's work as an "accomplished! I embroiderer" and that the Petitioner has 
"made [a] contribution of major significance to this field by virtue of his mastery of 
embroidery techniques and by adaptation of these techniques to contemporary materials and tastes." 
In addition, they claim that the Petitioner's "use of the I technique as well as his ability to 
combine various! I styles in a single piece constitute a contribution of major significance in 
the field ofl I embroidery." I I also states that the Petitioner displayed his 
artwork at different art fairs in Minnesota and in other states. 
6 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter froml I a K-12 art teacher, which states that the 
Petitioner's contributions "to the art of embroidery, decorative art, and cultural traditions of 
are of major importance as they have and will continue to influence the work of other 
artists." 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, contending that expert testimonials from leading experts in 
the Petitioner's field of endeavor demonstrate that the Petitioner's work is original and that he has 
made contributions of major significance to his field of endeavor. To satisfy this criterion, the 
Petitioner must establish that not only has he made original contributions but that they have been of 
major significance in the field ofl I embroidery. Major significance in the field may 
be shown through evidence that his original methods or processes have been widely implemented 
throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a 
level of major significance in the field. 
The evidence is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. While the 
reference letters discuss the Petitioner's work, noting in general that it is well-regarded and 
appreciated, they do not explain how his work has impacted the field in a major or significant way, 
consistent with a finding of "contributions of major significance." For example, the record does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's techniques have been widely used by others in the field. The 
documents in the record primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field without 
providing specific examples of how his contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance. 
Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have 
already influenced the field significantly are insufficient to satisfy this criterion. Kazarian v. USCIS, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. Moreover, we need not accept 
primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 17. 
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. A review of the 
record of proceeding, however, does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
for the reasons outlined below. 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion based upon his articles about the history and 
importance of embroidery in I which was published in majorl I media, and a book 
titled published inl I The record includes copies of several pages of the book 
which lists the Petitioner as "developer." According to the letter froml I 
the Head of Publishing House, the book L I was published by the Petitioner, 
published in 350 copies, and distributed among regional libraries. The record also includes evidence 
that the Petitioner has authored three articles that were published in the newspaper! I 
and the magazine Education and Upbringing and presented at the 2014 Scientific-Practical 
International Conference of the Academy of Sciences of the 
7 
While the Petitioner might have authored written work, he has not shown that his pieces qualify as 
"scholarly articles," as required under the criterion. As defined in the academic arena, scholarly 
articles report on original research, experimentation, or philosophical discourse, and often have 
footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography, and may include graphs, charts, videos, or pictures as 
illustrations of the concepts expressed in the article. 1 For other fields, scholarly articles are written 
for learned persons in that field. 2 "Learned" is defined as "having or demonstrating profound 
knowledge or scholarship," and learned persons include all persons having profound knowledge of a 
field. 3 Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the bookl and three articles, which 
are each between one and three pages in length, qualify as scholarly. There is no documentary 
evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's works were peer-reviewed, contain any references to 
sources, or were otherwise considered scholarly. Moreover, the record lacks evidence that other 
scholars have taken notice of the Petitioner's work. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established that his work has been published in qualifying 
publications. The Petitioner submitted a letter from the Chief Editor ofl I stating that 
the circulation of lis 500 printed copies. The Petitioner also submitted a letter from the 
Chief Editor of Education and Upbringing, stating that the magazine Education and Upbringing is 
published in 4,000 copies monthly. Finally, the Petitioner submitted a letter from the Head of the 
Academy of Sciences, stating that its annual scientific international conference provides more than 
100 scientific articles in different areas and that all articles of the conference were published in one 
collection, with a circulation of 1,000 printed copies. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that based 
on the circulation data, these publications qualify as major media. In addition, he has not presented 
adequate documentation confirming they constitute either professional or major trade publications. 
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. A review of the 
record of proceeding reflects that the Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence 
establishing that he meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. We agree 
with the Director's determination. A review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the 
Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) for the reasons outlined below. 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/ default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i-140-evidence-pm-6002-005-1.pdf. 
2 Id. 
3 Id. 
8 
The Petitioner claims that he has performed as an expert embroiderer a leading or critical role for 
Gymnastics, an artistic and rhythmic gymnastics training facility in Minnesota. The Petitioner 
submitted a letter froml lthe founder and Executive Director of Gymnastics, which 
states that the training facility needs talented masters who can create beautiful leotards for the girls on 
its artistic and rhythmic travel teams and that she is interested in engaging the Petitioner as a silk 
embroider based on his expertise in the field of traditional! I embroidery. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, repeating that Gymnastics has a distinguished 
reputation and that I hired the Petitioner to complete embroideries on the leotards. However, 
the letter froml I does not explain how the Petitioner's role as an embroiderer for the leotards 
was leading or critical to Gymnastics as a whole. The Petitioner did not provide an organizational 
chart or other similar evidence to establish how his role fits within the overall hierarchy of the 
organization. The letter does not specify how the Petitioner as an embroiderer for the leotards 
contributed to the organization in a way that is significant to the organization's outcome as a 
gymnastics training facility or what role he played in the organization's activities as a gymnastics 
training facility. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not submit any independent, objective evidence demonstrating thatD 
Gymnastics has a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner did not submit, for example, documentary 
evidence distinguishing Gymnastics from other artistic and rhythmic gymnastics training 
facilities, so as to establish that it has a distinguished reputation as marked by eminence, distinction, 
or excellence. 
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
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 lesser 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 have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate and conclude 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. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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 recognition of his work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 
that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has 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 Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
9 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10