dismissed EB-1A Case: Equestrian Sports

(b)(6)
PATE~ NOV 2 5 Z013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
:Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department or Homeland -SeCurity 
U.S. Citizel!1ihip and Immigration Services 
AdminiStrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W ., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U~S. Citizenship 
and llll.migration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability. Pursuant to Section 
Z03(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
EnClosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
this is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions oflaw nor establish agency 
policy through non~precedeilt decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new (::tcts for consideration, you may file a il;lotion to reeonsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
wi.thin 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:/lwww.uscis.gov/fortits for the latest information oil fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
Seialso 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
IRon Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECiSION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Tex~ Service Center, denied the employment-based immigtartt visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
cli~missed. · 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "~ien of extraordinary ability" in athletics "in the field of 
·training ~d showing American Saddle Bred horses," pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the 
ln:Jmjgration and Nationality 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director determined the petitioner had 
not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as 
an alien .of extraordinary ability. 
Co11gress s~t a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or ipterna.ti<>J:Ia.i a.cclaitn'' · a.rtd pr~sent 
"extensive documentation'' of the alien's ;lchievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(b)(3). The il:nplementing regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
est_C!.blisb sustiined national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally ·recognized award. Absent the receipt of such all award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.f. _R. § 204.5(hX3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qu~ifyillg evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
The petitioner's priority date est.ablished by the petition filing date is January 6, 2013. On February 1, 
2013, the director -served the petitioner with a request for evidente (RFE). After receiving the 
petitioner's response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on May 10, 2013. On appeal, the 
'petitioner submits a statement with additional documentary evidence. For the reasons discussed below-, 
the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the classification sought. 
I. LAW . 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified imriligrants who 
are al.ieus described in arty of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A)Aliens with extraordinary ability.-- An alien is described iJI this subpa.ragrapb if--
(i) the alien ha.s extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
atbletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acelaim 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 
ex:traordinary ability, and · I 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. · 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (US~IS) and legacy hmnigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high stand~d for ip_djvjdu.als 
seeking irrunigtant VisaS aS aliens of extraordinary ability, See H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordfuaty ability" refers oilly to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have riSen to the very top of the field of endeavor. /d.; 
8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.;F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) r~qllires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's suStained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or ~er achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either th.rough evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifYing evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Nmth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, t:he cou.rt took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to 111eet a. given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204;5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concems should have 
been raised in a subsequent ''tm;:U merits determination." /d. at 1121,.22. 
The cou,rt stated that the AAO's evaluation tested oil an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial i.nquey~ the court sUited· tmtt ''the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
did not submit sufficient evidence, ''the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded).'' /d. at ·1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § Z04.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted apd then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion clai.Ined. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at le~t three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the j>etitioner has not satisfied the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
1 
S~ifiGally, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel subst_a,ntive or evidenti~ 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 2045(h)(3)(vf). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Previously Approved 0-1 Petitions 
The petitioner notes on appeal that she previously received a nonimmigrant 0-1 visa and opines that the 
n-1 criteria have changed over the years. The petitioner, however, i,s not seeking to renew her 
nonimmigrant visa but is seeking cla,ssifi.cation as a,n i.mntigrant, a distinct classification. While USCIS 
has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior 
a,pproval does not precl4de USCIS .from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, ·if 
similarly phrased, standard. Many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied a,fier 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 l)ept. Q[ Ju.stice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd; v. Sava, 724 
F. StJpp. 1103 (E.D,N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-129 nonimmigrant 
petitions than 1-140 immisrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply a,pproved hi. error. Q 
Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. S11pp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. 
Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preClude USCIS 
from denying an extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required · to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). USCIS need not treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084,1090 (6th 
Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U$. l008 (1988). ' 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a 
coUrt of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had Cl.pproved the nmumm.igrelnt 
petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision 
of a service center as the law is clear that an agency is not bound to follow an earlier detetmiflation as to 
a visa applicant Where that initial determination was based on a misapplication of the law. Glara 
Fashion, Inc. v. Holder, 11 CIV. 889 PAE, 2012 wt 352309 *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012); Royal Siam v. 
Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 148 (1st Cir.2007); Tapis Int'l v. INS, 94 F.S11pp.Zd 172, 177 (P.M~.2000)) 
(Dkt.10); Louisiana Philharmonic Orches_tr(l v. INS, 44 F.Supp.2d 800; 803 (E.D.l.a.l999), affd, 248 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 819 (2001). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted eviden.ce of . a qualifymg one-ti!ne 
achievement or, in the alternative, evidence 
that met the plain language requirements of at least thtee 
criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Specificatly, the director concluded only that the petitioner had 
doctuileilted qualifying awards and memberships. On appeal, it appea,rs th~t the petiti<>ner is under the 
2 The petitioner do¢s not claim to meet or subniit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PR£CEJ)ENT DECISION 
impression that she must demonstrate that she is the recipient of a one-time achievement that is a major 
iiiterilationally reeognized award, and that she must meet three of the regWC!,tOry criteri'!. at 8 C.f.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). However, the petitioner is only required to satisfy one of these regulatory requirements. 
ThiS decision will evaluate whether the petitioner meets either of these requirements below. 
C. Evidenti'!.ry Critefi(l3 
1. One-time Achievement 
As the Claimed one-time achievement, defi11ed at .8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) ~. a major internationally 
reeognized award, the petitioner submitted evidence of tbe gold medal for the _ 
The director determined that this award did not 3.IllOU:fit to a one-time 
l1Chievement pursuant to the regulation. At ~e outset, on appeal the petitioner submits evidenCe 
cohf'irming that gold medals are routinely the top award at a given competition. At issue is n9t whether 
the petitioner received the top award at the competition, bt1t wbether the top award at this partictd(lr 
competition qualifies CiS a. major internationally recognized award. 
The regulation at 8 C.ER. § 204.5(h)(3) provides in pertinent part: 
A petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that 
the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field <;>f expertise. St~cb evidence shall 
include evlden~ of a. one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
awar.d), or at least three of [the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(hX3)(i)-(x)]. 
Evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recog11iz.ed award. includes, but is 
not limited to a Nobel Prize. 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N , 6710, 6739. An award qualifies if the petitioner 
can demonstrate thCit the award is internationally recognized and the field generally regards it as a 
nl(ljor Ciward in the field as a whole. Notably, lesser internationally recognized awards for 
e;l(ceUence fall under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), and cannot, by themselves, establish eligibility. 
With regard to a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3); Ci Federal Court recently 
stated: · 
The . . . debate over what constitutes a "major" international award [is one] that 
neither party can hope to win. Common experience draws no line of demarcation 
between those awards that are "major'' and those that are not. The applicable law in 
this case draws no clearer line, other thCill to establish that some awards are "major, 
international recognized award[ s ]" and others ate "lesse:r nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards." 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) & (3)(i). Nothing itJ. either the 
INA or the regulations implementing it explains how USCIS or a reviewing court is to 
3 
The petitioner does not tlai.m to meet ot submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. r .. . 
(b)(6)
. . ( 
Page6 
NON-PRECEDENTDECISION 
differenti~te between "major" and lesser awards. In legislative history, Congress 
named the Nobel Prize as its sole example of a major, internationally recognized 
award that would by itself demonstrate "extraordinary ability." J(q,zarian, 596 F.3d Cit 
1119 (citing 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6739). No one suggests that an alien must win 
· a Nobel Priie to qualify, and no one suggests that [the petitioner's] awards are on par 
with a Nobel Prize. What awards less prestigious and recognized than the Nobel Prize 
qualify as major, international awards is a question that the law does not answer. 
There is little question, moreover, that Congress felt it uni.J,ecessary and perhaps 
inadvisable to define "major" in this context. It entrusted tha:t decision to the 
adroinistrative process. 
Ri)al v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, 772 F, Supp. 2d 1339, 1345 (W.P. Wash. 2011) 
aff'd, 683 F.3<l1030 (9th Cir. 2012). This same court determined that USCIS consider the relevant 
(l:lctor:s and. articulate a rational conilection between the facts and the outcome. /d. at 1345-46 . 
The petitioner must demonstrate that her claimed one-tillle achievement is iuternl:ltionally 
recognized. Intem'!,tional recognition results, not from the individual or organization that issued the 
prize or tbe l:lWC:lr<l, but through the awareness of the accolade in the eyes of the field internationally. An 
international level competition may issue lesser awards that merely receive local or regional 
recognition, which do not meet the plain language requirements of the regulation. 
In support of the position that this awl:lrd is recognized as one of the top awards in the field as a whole, 
the petitioner submitted an email from dated January 23, 2007. Ms. asserted 
within this email that the event in which the petitioner received the above named award '~has become 
the most important and prestigious international event for ' However, the record 
does not contaill evidence to corroborate this claim. Expert opinion testimony does not purport to be 
· evidence as to "fact;" instead such testimony should be corroborated with other evidence. See Matter of 
V·K-, 24I&N Dec. at 502, n.2; Matter of Caron Iniemational, 19 i&N Dec. at 795. 
Media coverage in an international media outlet or with,in multiple national outlets is one type of 
evidence ~hat can coJ;Toborate claims of international recognition. With respect to such coverage, . . 
iptemationa1 online accessibility by itself is not a realistic indicator of a given website's reputation; 
r:l:ltber the medi~ outlet's teach is relevant. For example, the Cable News Network (CNN) broadcasts 
internationally, and aS a result, the CNN website is significant and content posted on the CNN website 
can be considered to gamer national recognition. The petitioner submitted nuJllerous forms of media 
coverage with the petition and in response to the RFE. The only IJledia tlll:lt appears to relate to the 
claimed one-time a
,cbievement, however, is a pamphlet relating to the competition. The petitioner 
dig not submit evidence establishing that this pamphlet was published material, nor did she 
demonstrate that it demonstrates international recognition. 
the remaining evidence that might support Ms. claiffis conSists of letters all containing 
similar language. Specifically, the petitioner submitted the following letters that contaiJl nearly 
identical language: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page.? 
• Febf\lary 3, 2010 letter from 
• February 3, 2010 letter from 
• February 3, 2010 letter from 
• March 
4, 2013 letter from 
As a general concept, when an applicant or petitioner has provided affidavits from different perSons that 
contribute to her eligibility claim, but the language and structure contained within the affidavits is 
stri.kll.lgly similar, the trier of fact may treat those similarities as a basis for questioning the claims. See 
Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006). When cU:fidiivits 
c6nta:in such similarities, it is reasonable to infer that tb~ applicant or petitioner who submitted the 
strikingly similar doC1llllents is the actual source from where the suspicious similarities derive. See Mei 
Chq.i Ye v. U.S; Dept. of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007). Because the letters appear to have 
been drafted by Someone other than the purported authors, the letters possess lit:tl~ probative value. In 
evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be detemrined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality. See Mqtter o[Chll.wathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
The petitioner also submitted a March 4, 2013 letter from 
Regarding the gold medal for the 
competition Mr. stated: 
. M~ager and Triliner of 
She was competing and winning at national events an,d was subsequently cb.osen out of 
hundreds . . . of equestii.ans to be part of the elite group of equestrians to . represent the 
national team of in the Teams are selected after participation 
at the consist of a 3 
Day elimination process using five (5) and a high-
low scoring system. Riders could participate at only afte.r qualifying 
for provincial colors during the season. Provincial Teams cOnsisted of a 
maxiinum of six (6) Provincial riderS per Gait. In [the petitioner's] case she was 
selected fot both three-and five-gaited divisions. 
This selection to the national team in [and] of itself is the highest acbievement any 
athlete, or ill this case, any equest_rian, strives for ~ to represent your country on the 
world stage and compete against the world's top equestrians. 
This letter from Mr. in addition to his previous letter, contains language that is identical to 
the language in other expert letters and it carries less evidentiary weight as noted above. Reg~dless, 
while this letter discu.sses the selection process for the national team that competed at the event, his 
letter does not establish that awards at this event are major, internationally recognized awards. 
Finally, the record reflects that the competition contained 
representatives from five nations. The petitioner has not established that a major internationally 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
recognized award in her field would attract competitors from ortly five countries. As stated above, 
l~sser internationally recognized awards fall under 8 C.P.R. .§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) .. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy the regulatory 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. _§ 204.5(h)(3) relating to "a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
intemation:at recognized award)." 
As the record lacks sufficient evidence that this award is an internationally recognized major award in 
the field, it will not serve to llleet the regulatory requirements at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
2. Remaining Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evjdence to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien'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. 
The director determined that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
Submitted sufficient evidence to establish that 
she meets this criterion. 
P~blish~d 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. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found tbat tile petitioner had . not 
established her eligi.biJity. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned her claims under this 
criterion. Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty Gen., 401 P.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 
O~V"-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the 
plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 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 specification for which classification is sought. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner had Iiot 
established her eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not _contest the director's fmdings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned ber claims u_n_der this 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page9 
criterion. Sepulveda 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Aecordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
·Evidence thqt the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
This criterion anticipates that a ·leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall 
organizational hierarchy and th~t it be accompanied by the role's matching duties. The petitioner also 
b~s tl!e re$ponsibility to demonstrate.that she actually performed the duties listed relating to the leading 
role. A critical tole should be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the organization or the 
establishment's activities. The petitioner's performance in this role should establish whether the role 
was critical for the organization or establishroent as a whole. The petitioner must demOJ:l$trate that the 
organ.izations or establishments (in the plural) have a distinguished reputation. While neither the 
regulation nor precedent speak to what constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam-Webster's online 
dictionary defines distinguished as, ''marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence."5 Dictionaries are 
not of themselves evidence, but they may be referred to as aids to the memory and qnderstanding of tbe 
court. Nix V. Hedden, 149 u.s. 304, 306 (1893). Therefore, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate 
that the organizations or establishffients claimed under. this criterion are marked by eminence, 
distinction, excellence, or an equivalent reputation. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all 
of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of thi$ criterion. · 
Within the proceedings before the director, the pe.titioller claimed eligibility under this criterion based 
on her performance as a team manager for the 
in 2005 and 2006. The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and 
found that the petitioner had not established her eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner also references ber 
work as a coach for the specifically, the development of the under privileged. 
Within the director's decision, be indicated that the petitioner's evidence rel~ting to this criterion 
consisted of a letter from and evidence that she served as a team: manager of the 
The petitioner did not indicate Within the appeal that the director failed to 
consider additional evidence that was on record in the proceedingS before the director. 
Both of Mr. letters contain duplicative language that is also contained in letters from 
other authors .that the petitioner submitted. Therefore, these letters carry diminished evidentiary weight 
and will not serve to qualify the petitioner under this criterion. 
The record does contain a letter from Chairman of the Within his letter, Mr. 
described the requirements to be selected as a team manager for the association. However, Mr. 
did not provide a description of the role that the petitioner performed within this position, nor did 
5 See http://www.m:erriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished, accessed on November 12, 2()13, a copy of 
which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. · 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
he describe the impact that the petitioner's performance had on the As such, Mr. letter 
will not serve to d~monstrate that the petitioner has satisfied this criterion's requirements. 
With respect to the petitioner's role as a coach, the record lacks evidence of the number of coaches 
employed and an explamttlon for how they fit within the organizational biera.rGby. The record 
also lacks evidence of tbe petitioner's impact on such . that ·the petitioner has established the 
critical nature of her role for as a whole rather than simply to individual riderS. 
Even if the petitioner had demonstrated that she performed in a leading or critical role for tl;J.e 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 2()4.5(h)(3)(viii) also requires that the alien has 
performed in a leading or critical role for "organizations or establishments" in the plural, which is 
consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) Of the Act. 
Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(hX3) are worded in the plural. Thus, USCIS can 
infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. · · 
D. Summary 
The petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of a one-time achievement that is 
a major internationally recognized award, or three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a clajm of extraordincrry ability m.ust clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved. sustained national ()r international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a fmal merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner ha.s deQJ.OI!Strated: (1) a 
· ''level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
ve:ry top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sUstained national or intemational 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise.'' 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage a.t the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
final merits determination. 6 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has not satisfied the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 XA) of th~ Act @Q the petition 
may not be approved. 
Th.e appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende,26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
' I> The AAO II_lai_ntairts de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir: 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits deten:iiiilation 
as the office thatmade the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See a!Jo section 103(a)(l) of 
tbe Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 015q.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.l(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA i987) (holding that 
_ legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petition~).