dismissed EB-1A Case: Financial Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-G-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 17, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a financial journalist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
business. 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that he fulfills at least 
three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of M-G-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working as a special reporter in New York forl,__ ____ ..,.... 
a Nepali business magazine. 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). In denying the petition, the Director found that the 
Petitioner met only the awards and leading or critical role criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and 
(viii), respectively. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also satisfies seven additional 
regulatory criteria, discussed below. We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude 
that it does not support a finding that he satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he received 
an Excellent Economic Journalist Award (2011) from the~-~------------~ 
I I and media coverage showing that this award was nationally recognized in Nepal. 
2 
Matter of M-G-
Accordingly, the record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner contends that he meets this criterion based on membership withl l Nepal America 
Journalist Association (NEAJA), and U.S. Department of State's Foreign Press Centers (FPC). 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 outstanrng achievements in 
the field for which classification is sought. 1 The Petitioner offered letters from and NEAJA 
identifying him as a member and screenshots from the associations' websites. Although the 
screenshots relate to the background and history ofl I and NEAJA, the Petitioner did not provide 
their membership requirements, so as to demonstrate that they require outstanding achievements, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in the field consistent with the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In addition, the Petitioner provided his press credential from FPC and information from that 
organization's website entitled "Foreign Press Center Media Credential Application Guidelines 
(Washington, DC)." This information stated that FPC issues "press credentials to foreign media with 
a primary audience/circulation located outside the United States" and that "these credentials grant 
access to FPC events, facilities and services in Washington, DC and New York, NY .... " The 
documentation from FPC forth er indicated that "[ v] alidity of the FPC credential is in accordance with 
the terms of the applicant's visa status, duration of eligibility to work in the United States, and/or 
reciprocity with the employing media agency's home country." According to the information from 
FPC, the Petitioner's credential from that organization represents a press qualification or media pass 
rather than membership in an association. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he acquired 
"membership" with FPC based on his outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this 
criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
As documentation for this criterion, the Petitioner presented articles in Republica, Kathmandu Post, 
and Nepalnews.com, but the author of these articles was not identified as required by the language of 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
3 
Matter of M-G-
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Furthermore, the date of the article in Nepalnews.com was 
not provided as required by this criterion. In addition, these articles only briefly mention the Petitioner. 2 
Articles that are not about a Petitioner do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe 
v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles 
regarding a show are not about the actor). For example, the article in N epalnews. com is about remarks 
given by Nepal's finance minister at the I !meeting and not the Petitioner. Finally, the record 
does not include evidence showing that Republica and Nepalnews.com are major media. Based on the 
foregoing, the Petitioner has not established that he meets 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
For this criterion, the Petitioner submitted four letters from his employers. Two of these letters are 
froml I news section chief of I I Television Network. I I asserted that 
the Petitioner was "Chief of 'Banking and Share Beat' of Economic News bureau" and "Sub-editor of 
News Department." He farther stated: "[O]ur correspondents from outside capital started sending 
news related to Banking and Share Beat. Because of that we had given responsibility to [ the Petitioner] 
to collect all the news outside from I I Valley from our correspondent and given task jldgl 
himself to prepare as well as edit news to be broadcasted." The aforementioned letters from 
I I however, do not discuss whose work the Petitioner judged or the specific news reports he 
edited. The lack of specific, detailed information is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner 
meets the regulatory requirements of this criterion. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his 
activities withl I Television Network constituted his participation, either individually or on a 
panel, as a judge of the work of others in the field. 
In addition, the record contains a letter from '----,,----------J chief executive producer for .... I __ _. 
Television, appointing the Petitioner as a "content editor" effective March 1, 2018, and stating that his 
duties will include deciding "how and which news will be broadcast on the TV." This appointment to 
serve as a content editor is not evidence of his participation as a judge of others' work. The language 
of8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) specifically requires "[e]vidence of the alien's participation ... as a judge 
of the work of others." 3 Here, the record does not include evidence from I Television indicating 
that the Petitioner actually participated in judging correspondents' news submissions. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided a letter from I • I editor-in-chief of I~---~ 
appointing the Petitioner as "International Bureau Chief' with the responsibility of editing 
international news effective September 1, 2018. This appointment, however, post-dates the filing of 
the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). Again, 
the appointment to an editorial position does not necessarily demonstrate that he actually judged the 
work of others. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
2 For instance, the article in Nepa/news.com had only one sentence mentioning the Petitioner and the articles in Republica 
and Kathmandu Post had just two sentences mentioning him. 
3 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8 (instructing that a petitioner must show that he has not 
only been invited to judge the work of others, but also that he actually participated in the judging of the work of others in 
the same or allied field of specialization). 
4 
Matter of M-G-
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted letters of support discussing his work 
reporting on economic, financial, and banking matters. In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner 
must establish that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. For example, 
a petitioner may show that his 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 
in the field. 
The Petitioner contends that he has "made significant contributions by collecting and effectively 
broadcasting economic/financial and banking and share beat news in Nepal." He argues that the 
recommendation letters demonstrate his eligibility for this criterion. 4 As discussed below, these letters 
do not offer sufficiently detailed information, nor does the record include adequate corroborating 
documentation, to demonstrate the nature of specific "original contributions" that the Petitioner has 
made to the field that have been considered to be of major significance. 
For example,.__ ________ __. president ofl I stated that the Petitioner "is the first 
journalist/reporter who professionally made banking and share beat as his working area, there are more 
than 2 dozen television station[ s] broadcast the program. Due to his excellent reporting, he established 
himself banking beat reporter in the banking field." Likewise, I I associate editor 
for I I asserted that the Petitioner was "the first reporter to have focused 
on banking and share beat in Nepal's television" and that his work was "instrumental in bringing 
baking literacy" and financial awareness to Nepal's public. The record, however, does not include 
sufficient information or evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's work has affected the field in a 
substantial way or otherwise constitutes original contributions of major significance in his field. 
In addition, ~--------~ executive director of I I Bank, asserted that the 
Petitioner provided an "important contribution in promoting economic and banking news by way of 
information collection and news dissemination in 'Banking and Share' beat." I • lfurther 
indicated that the Petitioner "contributed in making people who save and invest aware by promoting 
financial literacy through analysis of latest trends, investi~ative reporting and its dissemination." 
Similarly,! I director of the I ~ I stated that the Petitioner "played an 
important role as a bridge in increasing awareness about share markets among general public .... 
[The Petitioner], through the reports he prepared, regularly informed investors about how to invest in 
primary and secondary shares and what affects share market." While thel land I I 
contended that the Petitioner's work has informed the Nepali public about financial and investment 
matters, they did not offer specific examples of how his news reports have risen to the level of 
contributions of major significance in the overall field. 5 
4 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 See USCTS 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 this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
5 
Matter of M-G-
Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance in the field 
and his impact on subsequent work add value. 6 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use 
hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form 
the basis for meeting this criterion. 7 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Without sufficient 
information and evidence demonstrating that his work constitutes original contributions of major 
significance in the field, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
As documentation for this criterion, the Petitioner submitted articles he wrote for BRTNepal.com, 
Share Market, Kantipur Daily, and Nepal National Weekly. In addition, the Petitioner contends that 
his journalistic work was broadcasted by I I Television. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires his "authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media." 8 Furthermore, a scholarly article should be written for 
"learned" persons in the field. "Learned" is defined as having or demonstrating profound knowledge 
or scholarship. Learned persons include all persons having profound knowledge of a field. 9 Here, the 
Petitioner has not established that his articles and television news segments were for "learned" persons, 
rather than for the general population. Moreover, he has not shown that his articles and television 
news segments contain the characteristics of scholarly articles. 10 The Petitioner therefore has not 
established that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Director found that that the Petitioner had demonstrated his eligibility under this criterion. For 
the reasons outlined below, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence showing that he meets the requirements of this criterion. Accordingly, the Director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner contends that he has performed in a leading or critical role for I I Television 
Network andl I For a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was 
a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, 
leading. 11 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed 
in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
7 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, affd in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
9 Id. 
10 Id. (indicating that scholarly articles "should have footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography"). 
11 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
6 
Matter of M-G-
act1v1t1es. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines 
whether the role is or was critical. 12 
Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his ositions as a banking beat report for ~I --~ 
Television Network and as a special reporter for reflect his leading or critical role for 
these organizations overall. With respect to his role for.___-.--_.Television Network, the Petitioner 
presented two letters froml I dated January 2014 and June 2014. I Is January 
2014 letter stated: 'I !Television appointed [the Petitioner] at Economic News Department to 
gather news related to Banking and Share Beat in the capital and prel?are as well as edited [sic] 
collected news to broadcast." In addition, the June 2014 letter froml I identified the 
Petitioner as "Chief of 'Banking and Share Beat' of Economic News bureau" and "Sub-editor of News 
Department," but did not farther elaborate on his duties and responsibilities in those positions. The 
lack of specific, detailed information about the aforementt°ned porions is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's role was leading or critical for Television Network. 
Regarding his role for I I the Petitioner offered two letters from I I dated 
September 2015 and September 2018. The September 2015 letter froml I stated that '1 I 
I lhas assigned [ the Petitioner] as I I ref orter through August 15, 2020." In addition, 
I I September 2018 letter indicated that I had appointed the Petitioner as 
"International Bureau Chief' with the responsibility of editing international news effective September 
1, 2018. This "International Bureau Chief' appointment post-dates the filing of the petition. 
Eligibility, however, must be established at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Although the aforementioned letters confirmed the Petitioner's employment and discussed his news 
assignments, they did not contain detailed, probati~ation demonstrating the specific nature 
and outcomes of his roles with I I and l__JTelevision Network. As it relates to a 
leading role, the Petitioner did not provide evidence to establish where his positions fit within these 
organization's overall hierarchy. Further, although! ts June 2014 letter identified the 
Petitioner as "Chief of 'Banking and Share Beat' of Economic News bureau" and "Sub-editor of News 
Department," this information is not sufficient to show that these positions were leading or critical for 
I !Television Network overall. Furthermore, the aforementioed )etterr did not explain how 
the Petitioner's positions were leading compared tol I and.__ __ _.Television Network's 
other editorial staff: nor did they indicate that his roles were of significant importance for these 
organizations' success or standing so as to demonstrate a critical role. 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the organizations or establishments to 
have a distinguished reputation, which is marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence. 13 While the 
record contains information abou~ !Television Network and I lfrom their websites, 
this information is not sufficient to demonstrate that they have a distinguished reputation in the news 
industry. USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 
SJO, aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9). For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
he fulfills this criterion. 
12 Id. 
13 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10-11. 
7 
Matter of M-G-
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
As documentation for this criterion, the Petitioner submitted a January 2018 letter from the chief 
executive producer for I !Television offering him a position as content editor with a jonthly I 
salary ofNRS 80,000.00. This letter is addressed to the Petitioner in New York and states that 
Television "reporters will email you their news stories on a daily basis" and that the Petitioner will be 
"helping us from U.S." The letter does not indicate that the Petitioner will be working as a journalist 
in Nepal. 
In addition, the record includes a September 2018 letter from the editor-in-chief ofl ._ ____ _. 
promoting the Petitioner to the position of International Bureau Chief in New York with a monthly 
salary ofNRS 65,000.00 effective September 1, 2018. This promotion and its accompanying salary, 
however, post-date the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. See 
8 C.F.R. § ~3.2(b)(I). Regardless, the Petitioner has not presented evidence demonstrating that his 
salaries fro Television and I lare high relative to other journalists working in the 
United States. 
The Petitioner also rovided a January 2014 letter froml I chairman of the .... I ___ _. 
~--------.---~~N_e~a_l....., listing the monthly salaries of the Petitioner and four journalists 
working in Nepal. ~-----' asserted that the Petitioner's January 2014 monthly salary of 
"$232.00 as per today's exchange rate (NRS 22,960.50) ... is the highest salary in Nepal" for a 
journalist employed as a television business reporter or financial sector reporter. The record, however, 
indicates that the Petitioner has worked in New York since April 2013. Accordingly, his January 2014 
U.S. monthly salary does not represent a proper basis for comparison with the salaries of journalists 
working in Nepal. 14 Because the Petitioner was working in New York in January 2014 and not Nepal, 
he must submit evidence showing that he earned a high salary relative to other journalists in the United 
States at that time. Without information comparing the Petitioner's earnings to high salaries of 
financial journalists working in the United States during the same time period, the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
The Petitioner requests on appeal that we consider comparable evidence for this criterion, stating: "I 
implore you to consider the totality of my evidence. My track record and career milestones will reflect 
my commercial successes in journalism." 15 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for 
14 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 11 (instructing that individuals "working in different 
countries should be evaluated based on the wage statistics or comparable evidence in that country"). 
15 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) requires evidence of the Petitioner's commercial success, "as shown by box 
office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk or video sales." Moreover, the evidence must show that the volume of 
sales and box office receipts reflect a petitioner's commercial successes relative to others involved in similar pursuits in 
the performing arts.15 Here, the Petitioner has not shown that journalism falls within in the "performing arts," nor does 
the record include receipts or sales that represent evidence of his commercial successes. 
8 
Matter of M-G-
comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not readily apply to his occupation. 16 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 "truly comparable" to that 
required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 17 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown why he cannot offer evidence that meets at least three criteria. The 
fact that he did not provide documentation that satisfies at least three is not evidence that a journalist 
could not do so. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not explain which evidence should be considered 
and how that documentation is truly comparable to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(x). For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he qualifies for this criterion 
through the submission of comparable evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. 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). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance and recognition of his work are indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that they are 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 he is one of the small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification 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. 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 Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-G-, ID# 4194519 (AAO Sept. 17, 2019) 
16 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
17 Id. 
9