dismissed EB-1A Case: Filmmaking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 1852444 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC. 5, 2019 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a filmmaker, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
satisfied three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, he did not establish sustained national or international 
acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets at least six of the ten evidentiary criteria and is qualified 
as an individual of extraordinary ability . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. 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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
categories 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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a film director and screenwriter whose credits include theatrical feature films and 
documentary projects released in his native country of Turkey. The record reflects that he has also 
worked as a lecturer and writer on the topics of screenwriting and filmmaking. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has 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 found that the Petitioner met the following criteria: 
awards, judging, and display of his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases at 8,c..E..R., 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iv), and (vii), resrctivf1y. The record reflects that the Petitioner's film,L___J 
I I won two Grand Jury Awards at the WorldFestl I Film Festival, and that it 
was screened at several additional festivals. Accordingly, we agree that the submitted evidence 
establishes that the Petitioner meets the awards and display criteria. In addition, the Petitioner 
provided evidence that he judged the work of others in his field as a member of juries for the I I 
International Film Festival as well as other short film and screenwriting competitions. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has established that he fulfills at least three regulatory criteria, and we will 
evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 
2 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As detailed above, the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence and established that he 
meets at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). We will 
therefore evaluate whether he has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has 
sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage of individuals at the very 
top of his field. In a final merits determination, we analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments and 
weigh the totality of the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to demonstrate that he has 
extraordinary ability. 
As a preliminary matter, however, we note that counsel appears to object to the Director's final merits 
analysis, stating that the Petitioner was held to "a super standard." Specifically, counsel cites to Muni 
v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440,445 (N.D. Ill., May 23, 1995), arguing that "a petitioner is expected to show 
international recognition as outstanding by producing evidence from at least 3 of the 10 criteria in the 
Regulations. It is not necessary to show that each criterion was met as a result of extraordinary ability." 
Counsel further argues "[i]t is the reverse that is true - by satisfying at least three criteria through 
meeting the plain language of the regulations, an alien is deemed to have international recognition." 
Notwithstanding counsel's assertions, Muni specifically states that "the satisfaction of the three­
category production requirement does not mandate a finding that the petitioner has sustained national 
or international acclaim and recognition in his field." Id. at 445-46. 
As discussed above, USCIS performs 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 Kazarian 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010); see also USCIS Policy Memorandum 
PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; Revisions to 
the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 (Dec. 22, 2010). Here, 
the Director's decision reflects that he evaluated the evidence to determine if it met the plain language 
of the evidentiary criteria as the first part of a two-step analysis. After determining that the Petitioner 
had met three criteria, the Director considered the quantity and quality of evidence in order to 
determine whether the evidence was consistent with a finding that the Petitioner demonstrated that he 
has sustained national or international acclaim. We do note, however, that in conducting the final 
merits determination, the Director did not consider the totality of the evidence, but rather limited his 
final merits discussion to evidence submitted to meet the awards, judging, and display criteria. We 
will consider the totality of the evidence in our discussion below. 
The Petitioner is a film director and screenwriter who has also worked as an assistant director, camera 
operator, film magazine editor, and lecturer. The record as a whole reflects that he has become a 
respected figure in the Turkish film and television industry, but does not demonstrate that his 
achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. 
H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Based on the submitted evidence, the Petitioner is best known for his first feature film,I J 6 
I I, which he completed in 2007. The Petitioner received two received Special 
Jury~Awards, in the "First Feature" and "Theatrical Feature" categories, at the 2009 Worldfest 
I !International Film Festival for this film. Fu~e record reflects that the Petitioner's 
participation in W orldfestl ~md his receipt of the l____J\ wards were covered by Turkish media 
3 
outlets, including the Turkish CNN website (CNN Turk). On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that 
W orldfest "is the oldest independent film and video festival in the world and the third most competitive 
international film festival in North America." 1 Worldfest's publicity materials reflect that many 
internationally recognized film directors received their first awards at the festival very early in their 
careers. 2 This fact does not establish, however, that winning al IAward results in sustained 
national or international acclaim for the award recipient. The other I !Award-winning film 
directors referenced by the Petitioner have many film credits and became internationally recognized 
in the field based on other projects that came later in their careers. The Petitioner received his awards 
for .__ _______ _.in 2009, but has not directed another feature film or demonstrated that he 
received any additional nominations or awards for his film and television projects in subsequent years, 
which would tend to support a finding that he has achieved sustained national or international acclaim 
in the field. 
The record also reflects that I I was screened at the I IFilm Festival, t~ 
I [urkish Film Festival, thel I Film FestivalJ ITurkish Film Days, and thec=J 
I ~ Middle East Film Festival. As it is expected that film directors would exhibit 
their artistic work in front of audiences, we will evaluate the extent to which the display of the 
Petitioner's work is reflective of acclaim consistent with this classification. While this evidence 
demonstrates that the film received additional recognition in the independent film field, the record 
contains little information regarding these festivals. Further, the Petitioner has not established that the 
selection of his film for these festivals resulted in significant media attention or otherwise resulted in 
national or international recognition. For example, the record reflects that the Tallahassee Democrat 
published a 2008 article titled 'c=l Rolls Cinema-Powered tri throu h Middle East," which 
mentioned the Beneficiary's visit to~ to discuss and present at its Middle 
East Film Festival. In addition, the Petitioner provided a 2008 Austin Chronicle article 
titled 1 IFilm Festival Announces Full Lineup," which listsl I among the 
films being screen at the festival that year. The Petitioner did not provide evidence that he received 
any major media coverage for his festival appearances in the United States or elsewhere or provide 
other evidence that his U.S. film festival screenings reflect the level of national or international acclaim 
required for this classification. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner received considerable print media coverage in Turkey 
surrounding the release of~------~ The Director determined that the evidence submitted 
under the published materials criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), did not meet all elements of the 
evidentiary criterion either due to incomplete translations, incomplete information regarding the 
author, title, and date of the material, and/or a lack of evidence that the articles appeared in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. On appeal, counsel reiterates that the Petitioner 
provided published materials "from major newspapers and magazines" but we agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner did not provide independent evidence showing that the submitted newspaper and 
1 W orldfest' s own publicity materials indicate that, when founded in 1961, it "became the third competitive international 
film festival in North America." This evidence does not support various statements in the record which refer to Worldfest 
as "the third most competitive" film festival in North America. 
2 Specifically, Worldfest's website provides a lengthy list of directors "discovered" at the festival that includes Steven 
Spielberg, George Lucas, David Lynch. Oliver Stone, the Coen Brothers, Ang Lee, among others and states that there are 
"hundreds more." 
4 
magazine articles appeared in major Turkish publications with high circulation statistics. 3 Therefore, 
while the Petitioner provided evidence that articles about him and~-------~ appeared in 
Turkish publications such as Aksiyon, Haftalik, Sinematurk, Sultanahmet Gazetesi, Turkish Daily 
News, and what appears to be the Turkish version of Star magazine, we cannot determine whether this 
evidence supports the Petitioner's claim that he received major, national media attention for his work. 
The Petitioner also submitted a screenshot showing that he was interviewed on Fox Channel Turkey 
and NTV in connection with I [ but he did not provide the dates of broadcast, 
transcripts of his interviews, or evidence that these were national broadcasts. The record also contains 
evidence that, in addition to the film's screenings in various festivals, it received a broader theatrical 
release in Turkey. However, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient objective evidence to establish 
that the film was a commercial success based on its box office receipts or video sales. Therefore, 
while the evidence shows that .__ _______ ____.enjoyed critical acclaim at Worldfest, was 
screened at several other festivals, and received media attention, it does not demonstrate that this 
acclaim was accompanied by commercial success despite its broader release. More importantly, as 
will be discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that his subsequent projects have garnered 
the same level of acclaim or elevated him to the very top of his field. 
The Petitioner also provided evidence that he received media coverage related td.__ ______ ~ 
a six-part documentary series that aired on the Turkish television channel TRT in 2014. Although 
counsel describes TRT as "the second most watched channel in Turkey," this claim that is not 
adequately supported by independent evidence. 4 The Petitioner provided several print articles 
regarding the premiere ofl I and evidence that part of the series was screened at a 
premiere event atl I University. Additionally, he provided: screenshots from the 
NTV television program Hafta Sonu which appears to depict an interview with the Petitioner and 
coverage of ......,_ _______ __. premiere; screenshots from TR T Turk which were captioned 
a brief article about the 
premiere that appeared on the TR T A vaz website; and screenshots that appear to show the Petitioner 
being interviewed in-studio about I I for the channel TRT Haber. As with other 
evidence submitted under the published materials criterion, the Petitioner did not provide transcripts 
of television interviews and appearances or evidence that the submitted print articles were published 
in major media. While,...__ _______ ~appears to have been a nationally televised series whose 
premiere was covered by Turkish media outlets, the record does not contain evidence that it was 
nominated for or received any awards or evidence that it drew a large number of viewers or critical 
acclaim. 
The record contains comparatively l~rce regrding the Petitioner's o~her film projects which 
include the documentaries I IL__J I I and! I I I In addition, some of the submitted testimonial letters, discussed further below, 
reference the Petitioner's earlier work for the television series.__ _________ __. andl I 
.__ __ _,I on which he worked as an assistant director. However, the record lacks sufficient independent 
evidence of the recognition he received for these projects. With respect to the documentaries, it is 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (stating that "evidence of published material in professional 
or major trade publications or in other major media publications about the alien should establish that the circulation ( on­
line or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics and show who the intended audience of the publication is). 
4 Based on the information from TR T's website, there appear to be 14 different TRT channels, some of which are regional, 
rather than national or international. It is unclear which TRT channel(s) aired the Petitioner's documentary series. 
5 
unclear when, where or in what capacity these projects were released and how they were received by 
audiences and critics, as many of them were documented in the record solely through submission of 
captioned screenshots. The record reflects that an article about the Petitioner and his filml I 
appeared in the Turkish publication Aksiyon in 2006, but he did not provide evidence that this 
publication is considered major media in Turkey or otherwise provide sufficient evidence to establish 
that this film received national or international attention. 
Overall, during his 20-year career in his field, the Petitioner has established that he directed one award­
winning film that garnered him national attention in Turkey when it was first released and when 
screened at international festivals in 2008 and 2009. His next noted project! I 
was released in 2014, and also garnered some media coverage in Turkey. While both projects are 
noteworthy accomplishments for the Petitioner as a film director, the evidence does not establish that 
they are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work" or that receiving the documented level of 
recognition for two projects during a 20 year career demonstrates a level of success consistent with 
being among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C .F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner emphasizes that he does not work solely as a film maker, but is also a writer and lecturer 
on the subjects of film making and screenwriting. Many of the submitted articles written by him 
about screenwriting and filmmaking appear to have been published on the hiss own website, but the 
record does not contain evidence showing that his website is widely viewed or read. The Petitioner 
also provided evidence that he contributed to a book titled J I about Turkish 
director I l but he submitted only a brief excerpt from his chapter. An article about the book 
indicates that it consists of interviews withl 6nd his family and friends. However, it is unclear 
whether being selected for an interview about his friend and former colleague is indicative of his 
national acclaim for his work in the field. 
The record further reflects that the Petitioner authored articles or reviews in the Turkish publications 
Anlysis, Bilem ve Gelecek, Cafe-Sanat, Hayed Perdesi, and Film Arasi, a film magazine that he co­
foundedAs acknowledged by counsel, any published articles must be evaluated so that we can 
determine whether they are indicative of the Petitioner being one of that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of his field and enjoying sustained national acclaim. Here, the Petitioner did not 
provide sufficient information regarding these publications, such as their circulation statistics and 
targeted audiences, to support such a finding. On appeal, counsel maintains that the submitted articles 
are "extraordinary" but does not offer further explanation. While the evidence supports the 
Petitioner's expertise in the filmmaking and screenwriting field, we cannot determine that his 
publications support a finding that he enjoys sustained national or international acclaim that places 
him at the small percentage at the very top of his field. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence related to his work as a lecturer and asserts that it supports a 
finding that he has made original scholarly or artistic contributions in his field, consistent with the 
evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The Petitioner listed and provided evidence of 18 
lectures, seminars and classes in which he served as an instructor between 2009 and 2016 on topics 
such as the Turkish filmmaking business, screenwriting, and film analysis. However, similar to the 
submitted evidence of his published articles, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information 
regarding his activities as a lecturer to establish that this evidence is indicative of his stature at the top 
6 
of his field or his sustained national acclaim. While the Petitioner provided copies of newspaper 
articles that announced workshops and seminars in which he participated as a lecturer, the record does 
not contain information regarding the publications in which they appeared or otherwise support a 
finding that he received national attention based on his experience as an instructor in the field. Further, 
the fact that he has published articles and delivered seminars and lectures does not lead to a conclusion 
that he made original contributions of major significance in the field based on these activities. 
The Petitioner has also submitted testimonial letters that summarize and discuss the Petitioner's 
contributions in the field as an author, lecturer, and film maker. With regard to his published 
materials, he provided a letter from I I of D Films, who stated that he relied on the 
Petitioner's "online posts about World Cinema" to use in his own teaching activities. Similarly, the 
Petitioner provided a letter from Turkish actorl I who states that he has attended some 
of the Petitioner's seminars and lectures inl l He describes the Petitioner's topics as "unique, 
insightful and inspiring" and notes that the Petitioner "has not only changed my interpretation of the 
screenplay characters but also my acting performance and the way I give life to characters that I am 
portraying." While these letters suggest that the Petitioner's essays and lectures have directly impacted 
I I and I I in their approaches to teaching and acting, their statements are not 
indicative of original contributions in the field with a wider impact consistent with "major 
significance," nor do their statements support a finding that the Petitioner has received national or 
international acclaim as a result of his writing and lecturing activities. 
The Petitioner also provided letters that discuss his contributions as a filmmaker.I I a 
filmmaker from New Zealand, discussd lnoting that the Petitioner used a "novel 
initiative" to write the film's screenplay. Specifically, she states that [i]t was novel in the sense that 
it was one of first examples of online story development collaborating with its public audience on the 
internet" and was "way before the time of kickstarter or any other collaborative fundraising or 
collaborative creative platforms."! I also describd~------~b as "one of the first 
Turkish films in the mystery/thriller genre" and states her belief that it is "still a good subject of film 
studies itself" Finally she commented on ~-------~noting that the series "sought the 
forgotten and unheard of voices of African people" and noted that the Petitioner's "effort to depict all 
colors of the planet and his contribution build [sic] a better society was outstanding." WhileD 
I I discusses original or novel aspects of the Petitioner's work, she has not established that either 
of his films was particularly influential in the Turkish or international film industry such that it had 
they had an impact of major significance 5 in the overall field that contributed to his national or 
international acclaim. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter froml l an executive editor with~I ---~ 
I I who discusses the Petitioner's early career, noting that he got his ~tart workipg 
on non-fiction shows as a member of1 ~ team, and later brought the project~l--.,.... ..... ~!to 
the TV channel's board of directors, noting that the show became "one of the most popular and most 
influential TV shows in 2000s," and influenced the major television networks for years as they tried 
to replicate the show. A letter froml lofl , J also mentions that 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met the original contributions criterion because she did not corroborate her impact 
in the field as a whole). 
7 
the Petitioner was the screenwriter and director of I I noting the popularity of the show and 
its "significant impact on its audience on a national scale in Turkey." However, as noted, the record 
contains little independent evidence of the Petitioner's work on I I or the attention he received 
for this work, to corroborate its claimed impact and influence on Turkish television. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter froml I a writer and film critic, who describes the 
Petitioner's work as "extraordinary and exceptional" and states that he is "an outstanding artist" who 
has "many followers in Turkey in artistic sense." I !further notes that the Petitioner is "very 
well-known, extraordinary and one of the most impactful film directors." However, he does not offer 
specific examples of the Petitioner's impact on the field or discuss in any detail how he has influenced 
other artists. Finally, o, anneal t~e Petitioner eovides a new letter from 
I ~t University of1~_ ----~----____..who summarizes the evidence in the Petitioner's file 
and concludes that "he has earned a very distinguished level of recognition and admiration among his 
peers and other professionals." 
In evaluating the Petitioner's evidence, we take into account the probative analysis that experts may 
provide in opinion letters regarding the significance of an individual's contributions of major 
significance. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major 
significance in the field and its impact on subsequent work add value, while letters that lack specifics 
and simply use hyperbolic language do not. 6 While the referenced letters praise the Petitioner's 
talents, accomplishments, and broad experience, they are not sufficiently detailed to support a 
conclusion that he has made impactful or influential contributions to his field reflecting a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" garnering the required sustained national or international acclaim. See 
H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's experiences judging the work of others, an evaluation of this practice is 
acceptable under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-11, to determine if such evidence is indicative of the 
extraordinary ability required for this highly restrictive classification. The record reflects that the 
Beneficiary was responsible for judging entries at various film festivals and screenwriting 
competitions in Turkey between 2013 and 2016, including the 4th and 5th llrnternationµl.Eilm, 
Festival, thel !Documentary and Animation Shorts Competition, ~ersity's 6th l__J 
I !Short Film Competition, and the I I Screen I lay Competition, among others. The 
Petitioner provided screenshots of articles demonstrating the I andl I Screenplay 
award winners received media coverage on the website Ihlas Haber Ajansi (Iha.com.tr). The Petitioner 
also submitted screenshots showing that he presented the Best Short Documentary award to the winner 
at the I !competition, which was televised onl I TV." However, the documented 
amount of coverage does not establish that the Petitioner garnered national recognition in the field 
based on his work as a judge in these competitions. The record contains little background information 
regarding the nature or scope of the competitions he judged, or the level of recognition associated with 
being selected as a judge. While we note that at least one of these competitions had a televised awards 
ceremony, the record does not contain evidence regarding the station that broadcast the awards and its 
intended audience. As a result, we cannot determine that the Petitioner's judging activities reflect 
that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
8 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted evidence that he is a member and "advisory 
committee member" of SINEBIR (Turkey's "Film Authors' Collecting Society"), a member of the 
advisory board of the Center for Turkish Cinema Studies (TSA), and a member of the International 
Competitiveness Research Group (URAK), an organization that does not appear to be related to the 
film industry. While his membership in Turkish film industry associations is noted, the record does 
not contain sufficient supporting evidence regarding these groups or their membership requirements 
and selection procedures to establish that such memberships, even at the advisory board or committee 
level, are indicative of the Petitioner's national acclaim as a film maker. 
Considered in its totality, the evidence in the record demonstrates that the Beneficiary is a talented 
film director, screenwriter, author and lecturer who is well-respected within Turkey based on his broad 
experience in the film and television industries. While his experience is wide-ranging and includes 
several notable accomplishments, the Petitioner has not shown that his artistic achievements at this 
point of his career, in any one area or as a whole, are indicative of one who has risen to the very top 
of his field of endeavor with sustained national or international acclaim, as required. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2)-(3). 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held that even 
athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished 
to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate that he has 
sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of his field. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9