dismissed EB-1A Case: Equestrian Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 8, 2024 In Re: 29547038 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an equestrian athlete trainer and rider, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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 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 ofChawathe, 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 )(1) of the Act. 
The implementing regulation further states that the tenn "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 pet1t10ner can demonstrate international recognition 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. 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 equestrian rider and trainer specializing in the sport of show jumping. He intends 
to continue to compete in show jumping events in the United States, as well as train young horses to 
compete in those events. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he 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 determined that the Petitioner met only one of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to his participation as a judge of the work 
of others in his field. On appeal, the Petitioner continues to assert that he also meets the evidentiary 
criteria relating to receipt of prizes or awards received as an equestrian rider, published material about 
him in major trade publications, original contributions of major significance to his field, and a leading 
or critical role for organizations having a distinguished reputation in the field. 1 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that he does not meet the requisite three 
criteria, and thus does not meet the initial evidentiary requirements for the requested classification. 
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 Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion. 
However, we disagree and withdraw the Director's conclusion on this criterion. 
1 While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered the record in its entirety. 
2 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he received prizes or awards that 
are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field of endeavor. The Petitioner 
submitted evidence of numerous awards and show placements that he has received throughout his 
career, including photos of trophies, lists of competition results, information about horse show events 
in which he com eted media articles letters of endorsement, and letters from the '------------' 
~---------------------~· The Director dismissed lists showing the 
Petitioner's placement results and did not to give evidentiary weight to photos of trophies that do not 
depict the Petitioner's name. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that the letters from theI I 
.____________ ____. letters of endorsement, media articles, and competition records serve 
to verify his achievements. 
While the trophies may not identify him 
by name, the competition results, letters of endorsement, and 
media articles corroborate his claims ofreceiving the awards corresponding to the trophies. Moreover, 
the placement results and awards' recognition are also corroborated by the letters of endorsement and 
media articles. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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) 
To determine whether the Petitioner has submitted evidence that meets the plain language of this 
criterion, we first determine whether the published material was related to the person and the person's 
specific work in the field for which classification is sought. The published material should be about 
the person, relating to the person's work in the field. See Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d 535 
(2012) (holding that articles about the Iranian Table Tennis Team which only briefly mentioned the 
person were not about him.); see also Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2008 WL 106997512 (D. Nevada 2008) 
( concluding that articles focusing on a character played by the person or the show he performed in 
were not about the person). Published material that includes only a brief citation or passing reference 
to the person's work is not "about" the person. Second, we determine whether the publication qualifies 
as a professional publication, major trade publication, or major media publication. In evaluating 
whether a submitted publication is a professional publication, major trade publication, or major media, 
relevant factors include the intended audience (for professional and major trade publications) and the 
relative circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade publications and other major media). 2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion and highlights sections from articles in 
several publications, including the 
I I As noted by the Director, some of the articles contain only 
competition results and brief descriptions of the events. While some of the articles briefly mention 
the Petitioner, we cannot conclude that it is "about" him within the meaning of the criterion. Moreover, 
a few of the articles, including the I !article, did not list an author, and therefore did not meet the 
requirements of this criterion. Others noted that they were an "Edited Press Release," prepared by an 
3 
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. 3 Furthermore, while the Petitioner provided information about.__ _____ __. including 
its Media Kit 2022 in support of it being a major trade publication, we are not required to rely on the 
self-promotional material of the publisher and "we may require more than the publication's own say­
so that it is 'major."' Cf Krasniqi v. Dibbins, 558 F. Supp. 3d 168, 185 (D.N.J. 2021) (citing Braga 
v. Poulos, No. CV 06-5105 SJO FMOX, 2007 WL 9229758, at *7 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007) ajf'd, 317 
F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding that we did not have to rely on a company's self-serving 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media)). 
In addition, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided additional 
articles, including an article from the~--------~however, these articles were published 
after the filing date. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing a petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b)(1). 
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor sign[ficance 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 the decision, the Director acknowledged that the reference letters submitted by experts and others 
in the field showed that the Petitioner has been successful but concluded that the letters lacked 
specificity regarding the originality of his training methodology and its influence on the field of 
equestrian sports. The Director 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 his training 
method and its originality, and that the Director erred by not giving the letters adequate consideration. 
The reference letters all indicate that the Petitioner's training method focuses on the horse's state of 
mind and that it is all about the well-being of the horses. For instance, the letter from I I 
states that the Petitioner "ensures his horses are happy in their work and builds a strong relationship 
with his horses" and that his training method "is quite different from the typical training philosophy 
of using force and aggression to train a horse." Moreover, the letter froml lstates 
that the Petitioner "has developed routines and training exercises that are unique and successful to 
develop these young horses into successful grand prix champions." The letter further explains that 
show jumping horses in the United States are usually purchased in Europe as they are "ready to go" 
horses and, therefore, having the Petitioner in the Unites States is so important to the equestrian 
4 
I 
industry because it adds "a great priority to the industry's long-term success that the U.S. start to spend 
the many millions of dollars to buy a top horse here in the U.S. and not in Europe." However, the 
letters do not establish that he has created an original method of training that has contributed to the 
broader show jumping or equestrian community. Nor do they show that the results of his training have 
been so impactfol that they have been of major significance to the field. Moreover, we observe that 
lettrs indicate that as a result of the Petitioner's training methods, three horsesj 
and_ Ihave found outstanding success in competitions. While this evidence shows 
that the Petitioner has contributed to the advancement of these horses under his tutelage, it does not 
establish that he has made a contribution of major significance to the overall field of equestrian sports 
or training. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the Director should have considered his claim under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) because there is no tangible proof of his training method, and therefore, 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 "[g]enerally, an original 
contribution is research, techniques, inventions, or other intellectual property that the petitioner created 
and developed" and that "there is no documentary evidence such as published material, patents, 
copyright or trademark material to corroborate the contributions claimed." 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 he 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) 
In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that he not only played a leading or critical 
role, but also that the organization or establishment for which he played that role is recognized as 
having a distinguished reputation. The plain language of the regulation requires the organizations or 
establishments to have a distinguished reputation, defined as "marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence or befitting an eminent person." 4 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that "[t]he nature of equestrianism dictates that an organization's 
success is based upon the success of its rider" and that "[ e ]quine organizations are only able to 
establish and build a reputation on the basis that they have superior results in competition." The 
Petitioner references his employer,~-----------------" and asserts that the 
printouts about her successes in the equestrian sport establishes that the company has a distinguished 
5 
reputation. However, we disagree. While the evidence shows that I lhas won many 
prestigious awards in the sport, the evidence does not demonstrate that the company itself has a 
distinguished reputation. Without more, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the company has 
a distinguished reputation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
While the Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement 
or evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria, we will nonetheless conduct a 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 he meets that standard. 
Extraordinary ability is an elite level of accomplishment whose recognition 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 show 
jumping tournaments and events, while also continuing to train 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 a show jumping competitor, the record does not show that he has sustained the same level of 
competition success in the equestrian sports competitions. For instance, the Petitioner's FEI pjge, 
submitted in response to the Director's RFE, shows that his worldwide ranking has dropped from 1 
to Moreover, althou h the Petitioner has submitted articles indicatin that he has won first place 
at th_._ _________________________ __. the record lacks evidence 
showing that these wins, individually or cumulatively, help to show sustained acclaim or place the 
Petitioner at or near the top of his field as a show jumping competitor. 
Turning to the Petitioner's work as a trainer, we have considered the reference letters submitted by his 
colleagues and employers when determining the originality and significance of his training methods 
above. As we noted, this evidence was not sufficient to show that he has established an original 
method of training that has impacted or influenced the show jumping or equestrian sports field to the 
required extent. In addition, the record shows that the Petitioner has trained horses that have gone on 
to have success, including.__ ________________ ___. While the record shows that 
his expertise is appreciated by his employer and former employers and has led to general 
6 
improvements in their horses show jumping performance and their businesses, it does not demonstrate 
that he has been recognized for his efforts as a trainer at the national or international level. 
Considering the totality of the evidence and the Petitioner's arguments on appeal, we conclude that he 
has not established that he meets the elite standards to be classified as a show jumping 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 
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) ; 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 ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal II), 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 ofHomeland 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")). 
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 
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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7