dismissed EB-1A Case: Equestrian Sports

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 26480903 Date: MAY 08, 2023 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a showjumping horse groom, seeks classification as an individual 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 the record did not 
establish the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability either as the recipient of a 
one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award, or at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). 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 nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
Section 203(b)(l) 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). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not 
readily apply to a petitioner's occupation. 1 USCIS must consider whether the regulatory criteria are 
readily applicable to the Petitioner's occupation and, if not, whether the evidence provided is truly 
comparable to the criteria listed in that regulation.2 A petitioner should explain why he has not 
submitted evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
as well as why the evidence he has included is "comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3).3 General assertions that any of the ten objective criteria do not readily apply to an 
occupation are not probative and should be discounted.4 
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 asserts she is an individual of extraordinary ability as agroom for showjumping horses. 
The record reflects that a horse groom oversees the horse's management, particularly during the 
exhaustion and stress of travel and competitions. Grooms reinforce the training already in place, 
monitor for injuries, and care for the horse's physical and emotional health. Distinct from 
veterinarians and farriers, a groom professionally assesses the horse's welfare, prepares the horse for 
competition, and administers nutrition and medicines, among other duties. The Petitioner provided 
evidence clarifying that grooms for showjumping horses differ from grooms for other equestrian 
disciplines. She explained the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) is the sole governing body for 
showjumping competitions and that it represents the ultimate level of difficulty for both horses and 
1 See generally USCIS 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 ADJ 1 -14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 Id at 12. 
3 Id. 
4 Id. 
2 
riders worldwide. While we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed 
and considered each one. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Petitioner does not dispute the Director's determination that she has not received a major, 
internationally recognized award. Therefore, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). Prior to this appeal, the Petitioner asserted her eligibility 
under numerous criteria, including 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (viii), and (ix). The Director 
determined the Petitioner met one of the evidentiary criteria, that of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), 
related to performing in a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations, but 
that she had not established eligibility under any of the other criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
the Director erred in determining the evidentiary criteria apply to her occupation and in not accepting 
the Petitioner's alternate evidence under criteria (i) and (ii) as comparable. 5 
Documentation of the individual'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) 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate she received prizes or awards, and that 
they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor.6 The 
description of this type of evidence in the regulation provides that the focus should be on the individual's 
receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to his or her employer's receipt of the awards or prizes.7 
The Petitioner explained that by regulation, FEI limits competitors to only riders and horses. She stated, 
she cannot receive awards because grooms are not considered competition participants. Various articles 
describe grooms as unsung heroes, essential and vital behind-the-scenes workers, and not formally 
recognized stakeholders in acompetition. The Petitioner submitted numerous letters from showjumping 
riders and other horse support staff explaining that the best evidence of a groom's ability is the awards, 
recognition, and achievements of the riders/horses with whom a groom works. Nevertheless, the 
Petitioner acknowledges an FEI Groom of the Year award exists in her field. However, she does not 
assert she won this or any other award. Instead, she provided other evidence, which she asserts is 
comparable. 
The Petitioner explained why the FEI Groom of the Year award does not meet the plain language of this 
criterion for various reasons, including that it is not awarded for excellence in the field. The Petitioner 
recognizes awards exist for her field but argues that awards for excellence do not exist in her field. 
Although the Petitioner provided the reasoning the FEI Groom of the Year award does not establish her 
5 Because she has not raised them on appeal, we consider issues related to the Director's determination of her ineligibility 
under the other criteria to have been abandoned. See Matter of R-A-M-. 25 l&N Dec. 657. 658 n.2 {BIA 2012) (stating 
that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda 
v. US Att'v Gen., 401 F.3d 1226. 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005). citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 
(11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) 
(plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
6 See generally USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6. 
7 Id. 
3 
eligibility under this criterion, her ineligibility under this criterion does not establish that an award does 
not or could not exist in her field. 
Even if the Petitioner established the criterion does not apply to her field of endeavor, we would still 
conclude the evidence provided is not comparable. First, there is little independent and objective evidence 
linking the Petitioner to any particular horses or riders in the competition. The competition result printouts 
and rankings do not name the Petitioner and other evidence indicates that media coverage for grooms is 
nonexistent or rare. The support letters appear to be the only evidence establishing aconnection between 
the Petitioner's management of the horse(s) and any particular competitions, riders, or award(s). The 
Director explained, the letters, "while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of asuccessful 
petition." Similarly, we conclude the letters from former employers and coworkers are probative but 
not necessarily sufficient to evidence the Petitioner's role as a groom or her extraordinary ability in 
the field. 8 
Even if the Petitioner provided independent and objective evidence to establish a link between her 
work and a particular horse/rider/competition, we could not conclude her work is the primary reason 
for the rider/horse winning the award. The evidence suggests thousands of grooms exist in the 
occupation and that a groom can metaphorically add or subtract zeros to the monetary value of a horse. 
The Petitioner further explained that riders choose their grooms. Despite the number of grooms and their 
purported importance, the evidence does not indicate what factors riders consider when choosing their 
grooms. Moreover, the Petitioner has not explained how riders know about which grooms to choose. We 
do not know, for example, if riders select available grooms through adatabase, a groom ranking system, 
word of mouth, poaching other riders' grooms after a competition, or simply accepting the groom that 
works with the horse they select. The evidence does not illuminate how many grooms each horse has 
or how many horses each groom has under their care. 
Nor does the evidence offer a direct comparison of the Petitioner's abilities to other grooms' abilities. 
The authors of the support letters do not provide detailed explanations of what they considered when 
choosing the Petitioner as their groom or how many times they selected the Petitioner over another 
groom, nor does the record contain the selection rates of other grooms. The evidence does not reflect 
how many of the Petitioner's horses did not win awards, that all the Petitioner's horses performed 
equally, or that her horses outperformed other grooms' horses so consistently and to such extent that 
we could isolate the Petitioner's ability as the reason. Further, the record does not indicate that due to 
the Petitioner's work, individual horses have sold at a higher dollar amount than other horses. As the 
evidence does not establish a baseline for any groom's ability, nor does it offer a sufficient comparison 
between grooms, we conclude the evidence, including the support letters, is not comparable. 
Although the Petitioner's field of endeavor may present evidentiary challenges for the extraordinary 
ability classification, we cannot lower the standard of proof, shift the Petitioner's burden, change the 
plain language of the criteria, or accept evidence that is not comparable. The Petitioner must support 
her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 
369, 376 (AAO 2010). We conclude the criterion applies to the Petitioner's field of endeavor and that 
8 Many of the letters contain identical language with signature pages that differ in appearance from the rest of the letter. 
This undermines a conclusion that the authors independently wrote their letters and further suggests the authors signed 
letters written on their behalf. 
4 
even if it did not, the evidence provided would not be comparable. For the foregoing reasons, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility under this criterion. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification 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) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based 
on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements 
in the field for which classification is sought.9 
The Petitioner does not assert she is a member of either the International Grooms Association (IGA), 
which describes itself as "professional association for grooms who compete at PEI international level," 
or of the British Grooms Association (BGA). The Petitioner provides the reasoning and analysis for 
why membership in the IGA and BGA would not establish her eligibility under this criterion, but in 
so doing, she acknowledges that associations do exist in her field of endeavor. As with the criterion 
discussed above, the Petitioner's ineligibility under this criterion does not establish the inapplicability 
of this criterion to her. 
Even if the Petitioner established the criterion does not apply to her field of endeavor, we would still 
conclude the evidence is not comparable. The Petitioner asserted that her horses/riders participated in 
elite teams, series, and finals, and that as a prerequisite for these, national and international experts 
determined that such riders/horses had outstanding achievements. Because her riders/horses qualified 
for the teams, series, and finals, the Petitioner asserts their involvement and outstanding achievement 
is comparable evidence under this criterion. 
Even if we were to accept that elite teams, series, and finals constitute "associations," within the 
meaning of this criterion, such associations would not be in the Petitioner's field of endeavor. Rather, 
the associations would be for riders and showjumpers. A rider's outstanding achievements are as a 
rider and a horse's as a showjumper; neither's achievements are in the groom field of endeavor. 
Viewing the evidence in the manner the Petitioner requests, i.e., that a groom's outstanding 
achievements are determined based upon the horse or rider's performance, we still conclude the 
evidence is not comparable for the same reasons we explained in our analysis of the prior criterion. 
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the criterion applies to the Petitioner's field of endeavor and 
that even if it did not, the evidence provided would not be comparable. Therefore, the Petitioner has 
not established eligibility under this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
The record reflects the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for nonimmigrants of 
extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed 
on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant 
9 See generally USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6. 
5 
visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, and case law. 
Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant 
petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. V. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA us V. 
US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 
1108, aff'd, 905 F. 2d at 41. Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office 
adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of 
appeals and a district court. 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). 
C. Summary 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement award, 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria, or comparable evidence. As a result, we need 
not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. Nevertheless, we reviewed the record in the aggregate and conclude the Petitioner's assertions 
negate a finding of acclaim and recognition. Specifically, the Petitioner stated she performs behind­
the-scenes work, is an unsung hero not formally recognized in a competition, and that media attention 
for her is rare or nonexistent. Accordingly, the evidence does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
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 perf01ming 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 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)(1)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field or that she 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, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6