dismissed EB-1A Case: Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 13, 2024 In Re: 33406698 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a journalist, 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 the Petitioner did not satisfy 
the initial evidence requirements for this classification by meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary 
criteria set forth in the regulations. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability immigrant classification under section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act if: 
• They have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which 
has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and their 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• Their entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the future. 
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 submit evidence of a 
one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then they must provide documentation establishing that they meet 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 demonstrates that they meet 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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022); Viscinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 
2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2dl339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a journalist specializing in automotive journalism, with over 25 years of experience 
in the field. The record reflects he has also worked as a business owner and executive in the 
communications industry, an elected city councilor in municipal government in Brazil, and as a 
parliamentary assistant for the legislative assembly of the State of Sao Paulo. Based on the Petitioner's 
submitted professional plan, he intends to continue working as "an automobile journalist" in the United 
States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must show that he satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted evidence related to seven of the regulatory 
criteria, including lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes, published material 
in professional publications or major media, judging the work of others, original contributions of major 
significance in his field, authorship of scholarly articles, leading or critical roles for organizations that 
have a distinguished reputation, and earning a high salary in relation to others in the field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii)-(vi), (viii) and (iv). 
Of these seven criteria, the Director concluded that the Petitioner met only one, by providing evidence 
that he had performed in a leading or critical role for an organization that has a distinguished 
reputation, under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The record supports the Director's determination based 
on evidence of the Petitioner's leadership role within the Brazilian Automotive Press Association. 
Although the Petitioner submits a brief in support of the appeal, he does not contest the Director's 
determination that he did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), relating to his receipt of 
lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes for excellence in his field. An issue 
not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) 
(citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
2 
In his brief, the Petitioner asserts that he has established by a preponderance of the evidence that he 
meets the five remaining claimed criteria, which we will discuss below. Upon reviewing all the 
evidence in the record, we conclude the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies 
at least three criteria. 
1. Published Materials 
To meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), a petition must include "published material about 
the person in professional or major trade publications or other major media relating to the person's 
work in the field for which classification is sought." In evaluating whether a submitted publication is 
a professional publication, major trade publication or other major media, relevant factors include the 
intended audience (for professional and major trade publications), and the relative circulation, 
readership or viewership (for major trade publications and other major media). See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (discussing how USCIS evaluates 
initial evidence of extraordinary ability under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)). 
As noted by the Director, the Petitioner's initial evidence included published materials appearing in 
various Brazilian print and online publications, including A Vos do Pavo, Jornal do Interior, Jornal 
Votura, Cheiro do Mato, Comandonoticia.com, and ShopCar News. In a request for evidence (RFE), 
the Director advised the Petitioner that the submitted articles did not discuss or relate to the Petitioner's 
work as a journalist, but rather discuss his ostrich farm, his work as a company director for 
I I and his work in local government. The Director also emphasized that his initial submission 
lacked documentation needed to establish that any of the submitted publications are professional 
publications, major trade publications or other major media, as the record lacked evidence regarding 
the publications' intended audience or data regarding their relative circulation, readership or 
distribution. 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE focused solely on an article titled 
I I which was published in the newspaper Falha de Sao Paulo. The Petitioner emphasized 
that the article "directly relates to [the petitioner's] involvement in the automotive sector, specifically 
featuring his photography work showcasing the new Chevrolet Vectra model, indicating his 
professional engagement within the industry." The subject of the article is the upcoming release of an 
automobile in the Brazilian market. Although the Petitioner's name is mentioned, he is merely 
credited for contributing the photographs that appear in the article. Therefore, while the record 
contains sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Falha de Sao Paulo qualifies as major media in Brazil, 
we agree with the Director's determination that this article does not qualify as published material about 
the Petitioner and relating to his work in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner requests reevaluation of two newspaper articles published in the newspaper 
Jorn al Votura in June 2012. The Petitioner contends these articles, which are about him and a project 
he undertook as director ofl Ito bring newspapers to local schools, do in fact relate to his 
work in the field of journalism. While the record supports this assertion, it lacks evidence to support 
the Petitioner's claim that this newspaper is a major media publication. At the time of filing, the 
Petitioner stated that Jornal Votura "has a wide reach in the state of Sao Paulo, which is the richest 
state in Brazil and has 44.04 million inhabitants." He also emphasized that this newspaper is "part of 
thel Iwhich has "more than 39 years' experience in the market." However, as noted by 
3 
the Director in the RFE, this statement is not sufficient to demonstrate that Jornal Votura's relative 
circulation qualifies it as "major media" among newspapers in Brazil. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that this publication (which he states is now known as Jornal 
Indaiatuba News) circulates within Brazil's most populous state and is part of the I I He 
emphasizes that it "boasts a social media following of over 40,000 individuals" and submits a 
screenshot from the newspaper's Facebook page showing 44,000 followers as of 2024. However, the 
record continues to lack evidence regarding the circulation of this newspaper and how it compares to 
that of other newspapers in Brazil. This information regarding the newspaper's current social media 
following is insufficient to demonstrate that Jornal Votura qualifies as a major media publication. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that he meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
2. Judging 
To meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the Petitioner must provide evidence of his 
participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied 
field of specialization for which classification is sought. 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner provided evidence that he has served as a jury member 
for the annual Brazilian Automotive Press Association's annual ABIAUTO awards and for Brazil's 
Top Car TV awards. The Petitioner emphasized that the ABIAUTO awards bring together more than 
40 specialized journalists from throughout Brazil who "participat[e] in the elections of the best cars in 
Brazil which are divided into eight categories." The evidence indicates that the Top Car TV awards 
follow a similar process and serve a similar purpose. The Director observed that while the Petitioner's 
area of expertise as a journalist may focus on the automotive industry, the plain language of the 
criterion requires that the petitioner judge the work of others in the same or an allied field. The 
Director concluded he did not meet the criterion, emphasizing "the petitioner is a journalist, and the 
evidence does not establish that he judged the work of other journalists." 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional background information regarding automotive 
journalism and automobile manufacturing. He maintains that "automotive journalists must possess an 
intimate understanding of the intricacies of the automotive industry and its operational processes." 
Further, the Petitioner objects to the Director's determination that he must demonstrate he has judged 
the work of other journalists. He maintains this conclusion "appears overly reductionist and apparently 
diverges from the primary intent of this requirement, which is to demonstrate his position as an expert 
in his field, being part of a small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
Upon review, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner's judging activities do not 
satisfy the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). As emphasized by the Director 
the regulation require evidence that the individual has 'judged the work of others in the same or an 
allied field of specialization for which classification is sought." The Petitioner seeks extraordinary 
ability classification based on his expertise in journalism, and more specifically, automotive 
journalism. His participation on a jury responsible for selecting the "best cars" in different vehicle 
categories does not involve judging the work of other individuals working in his field or an allied field. 
4 
Rather, the record indicates that the juries for the ABTAUTO and Top Car TV awards evaluate the 
features and performance of passenger vehicles, rather than the work or performance of individuals 
working in the field ofjournalism, or even the work of specific individuals working in the automotive 
industry. As such, we find the Director did not apply an overly restrictive interpretation of the plain 
language of this regulation. 
The Petitioner also argues that following the Director's logic, "a professor of neurosurgery, for 
instance, would be expected to demonstrate the fulfillment of these criteria solely through the 
evaluation of other professors' work, rather than assessing papers developed by students and submitted 
for presentation at scholarly conferences in the field of neurosurgery, as illustrated in the USCTS Policy 
Manual." We agree with the Petitioner that a professor's review of student papers in the same 
academic field would be a qualifying judging activity under the plain language of this regulation and 
note that a similar example can be found at 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 1 However, 
the Petitioner has not presented evidence that he has, for example, judged the work of students in the 
field of journalism or otherwise established that the facts here parallel the examples provided in the 
USCJS Policy Manual. 
The Petitioner's participation in the juries of the ABIAUTO and Top Car TV awards demonstrates 
that he has received recognition in the field of automotive journalism and such evidence would be 
considered in evaluating whether he has achieved national acclaim in his field in a final merits 
determination. However, for the reasons discussed, the evidence does not establish that his judging 
activities satisfy the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
3. Original Contributions of Major Significance 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he has made original scientific, scholarly, 
artistic, athletic or business-related contributions of major significance in his field. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In evaluating this criterion, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's reliance on his receipt of certain 
awards, his publication of articles and reviews as an automotive journalist, his publication of a book 
on the history of the municipality of I I his career as an elected official, certain public 
service projects related to his career in government, and his participation in automotive industry 
events, among other evidence. In the RFE, the Director addressed this evidence and explained why it 
was insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner had made original contributions of major 
significance in the field of journalism, noting, in part, that several of the claimed contributions were 
unrelated to this field. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner focused solely on his publication of the book 
I Ito establish his eligibility under this criterion, noting that his decision 
to write the book "emerged from a dire need to document and compile the history of I I 
1 The USCIS Policy Manual provides examples ofjudging the work of others that include "serving as a member of a Ph.D. 
dissertation committee that makes the final judgment as to whether a candidate's body of work satisfies the requirements 
for a doctoral degree, as evidenced by departmental records" and "peer review of abstracts or papers submitted for 
presentation at scholarly conferences in the respective field." 
5 
municipality." 2 He provided a statement from the book's publisher indicating that 1,000 copies were 
printed in 2002, along with a declaration from the I Imunicipal secretary of education stating 
that the book "is available for public consultation in the Municipal Library and also used in schools." 
The education secretary further states the book is "very important material for the community, which 
recounts and records the history of the municipality." Finally, the Petitioner provided his own 
statement, in which he explains his motivation for writing the book and some details regarding its 
subject matter. The Petitioner stated that the work "ended up being a milestone in the municipality" 
and "has been used for more than 20 years in the municipal education network, reaching approximately 
10,000 students." 
The Director acknowledged the evidence submitted in response to the RFE and granted that the 
Petitioner's book is an original contribution and deemed to be "significant to the Municipality of 
I I However, the Director concluded the Petitioner did not meet his burden to demonstrate that 
is a contribution that is of major significance in the field of 
journalism, and therefore did not establish that he meets the plain language of this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his book relied on his collaboration with local historians, 
notable personalities and residents to gather insights about the history ofl Iand represents 
a "substantial contribution to the field of historical documentation." While he acknowledges the 
Director's determination that he did not establish the book's major significance within the field of 
journalism, he asserts that "it is pivotal to acknowledge that [his] objective was to document the local 
history rather than solely cater to the journalism industry." In this regard, he states that "the lack of 
extensive distribution within journalism circles does not diminish the significance of [his] work." He 
explains that the book's "sustained integration within the educational framework for over two decades 
... underscores its enduring relevance and impact transcending the realm of journalism." Finally, he 
asserts the Director "overlooked 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(4), which permits the petitioner to present 
comparable evidence" to establish extraordinary ability. 
As noted by the Director, the Petitioner has established that his publication of 
I I is an original contribution based on its subject matter. However, the record does 
not demonstrate that the book has been cited by other authors, has provoked widespread commentary 
on its importance ( either in the field of journalism or the field of "historical documentation"), or has 
otherwise had an influence or impact that rises to the level of "major significance." The fact that it is 
available at the municipal public library and may still be used in the local public schools alone is 
insufficient to demonstrate how the book's impact or influence is of major significance. Further, the 
record shows that book was not widely distributed as only 1,000 copies were printed. While it appears 
that the Petitioner relied on journalistic techniques in writing the book to fill a course requirement for 
his undergraduate degree, its major significance in the field of journalism is not documented in the 
record. 
As noted, the Petitioner claims on appeal that the Director should have considered his book under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), which provides petitioners the opportunity to submit comparable evidence to 
2 A translated excerpt from the book indicates that it was written by the Petitioner for "completion of course work presented 
as a partial requirement for obtaining the Bachelor's Deg. in Social Communication Qualification in Journalism." The 
book was published in 2002 and the Petitioner received his bachelor's degree from I Iin 
March 2003. 
6 
establish eligibility. When evaluating comparable evidence, USCTS must consider whether a given 
criterion is readily applicable to the person's occupation and, if not, whether the evidence provided is 
truly comparable to that criterion. A general unsupported assertion that a listed evidentiary criterion 
does not readily apply to a petitioner's occupation is not probative. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
Here, the Petitioner has not articulated a claim that the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) is not 
readily applicable to his occupation. In fact, as discussed further below, the Petitioner claims that his 
body of work as an automotive journalist represents an original contribution of major significance. 
Further, he did not previously assert that he sought to meet this criterion under the comparable 
evidence provision at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). Regardless, for the reasons discussed above, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that his book represents an original contribution of major significance, 
either in the field of journalism or in another peripheral field. 
The Petitioner emphasizes on appeal that he "has authored numerous original articles across various 
formats and platforms within the journalistic media landscape." In this regard, he states his work has 
been "featured in widely cited circulated periodicals within his region, and notably he has also 
contributed to one of Brazil's foremost newspapers, Falha de Sao Paulo." He also emphasizes that 
he has submitted both published materials and supporting letters affirming the substantial significance 
of these extensive contributions." 
While the record contains ample evidence of newspaper and magazine articles the Petitioner published 
in his capacity as an automotive journalist, we agree with the Director's observation that, given the 
nature of the profession, simply demonstrating that he has authored articles and automotive reviews 
that have reached a significant audience in his region is not sufficient to demonstrate the major 
significance of his work in the field of journalism. 
We have also reviewed the submitted recommendation letters, as detailed letters from experts in the 
field may provide valuable context for evaluating this criterion. Such letters should specifically 
describe the person's original contribution and its significance in the field. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)( 1 ). Here, the recommendation letters offer enthusiastic praise for the 
Petitioner's knowledge, skills and experience as a journalist, but do not describe his specific 
contributions and their major significance. 3 
For example, a letter from N-N-, a fellow journalist, praises the Petitioner's "professional capacity and 
commitment" and his production of "high quality content for the car segment" for readers with an 
interest in this area. He states that the Petitioner has "many achievements and accomplishments" but 
does not identify a specific original contribution or its major significance in the field of journalism. 
He also provided a letter from P-L-D-, a retired General Motors executive, who describes the Petitioner 
as "one of the most qualified automotive journalistic writers and photographers" he has met. He states 
that the Petitioner's "critical reviews have been helping many of our clients to choose the perfect 
vehicle for their needs which is why his work has been truly useful not only for us as a company, but 
3 While we do not discuss each letter individually, we have reviewed each one. We note that several of the letters do not 
discuss the Petitioner's work as a journalist but instead focus on his work in municipal government, which is not the field 
in which he intends to work in the United States. 
7 
also for consumers." He concludes that the Petitioner "has made significant contributions not only to 
the market but mostly to society" but does not elaborate on this broad statement. Several other letters 
similarly highlight that the Petitioner's published reviews provide important information to consumers 
while also helping manufacturers to bring attention to their brands. However, the testimonial evidence 
does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's publication of automobile reviews in mostly regional 
newspapers and magazines presents a contribution of major significance in the field of automotive 
journalism. Further, it is reasonable to conclude that these types of reviews and articles, regardless of 
whether they are written by the Petitioner or another journalist in the field, are universally intended to 
provide helpful information to consumers while promoting the manufacturers' latest models. 
A letter from the founder of Carro magazine, states the Petitioner possesses "remarkable" knowledge 
in the automotive area and "has contributed a lot to the history of automotive journalism in Brazil, 
based on his many years of experience in "writing, photography, investigation and critical thinking." 
But the letter does not provide sufficient detail or explanation to demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
influenced or impacted the field of automotive journalism or detail his specific contributions to "the 
history" of the field. 
Overall, the recommendation letters demonstrate that the Petitioner is a highly regarded professional 
in his field who has earned the respect of fellow journalists and automobile executives alike. However, 
it is does not demonstrate that he has made original contributions of major significance in his field. 
Therefore, for the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he satisfies the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
4. High Salary 
To satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the Petitioner must demonstrate that his salary or 
remuneration 
is high relative to the compensation paid to others in the field. To determine whether a 
person's compensation is high relative to others, USCIS will consider comparative evidence, such as 
geographical or position-appropriate compensation surveys. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
The Petitioner claims that he has earned a high salary in his role as a "Parliamentary Assistant III" 
with the I I He states that his monthly remuneration 
was more than double the average monthly salary for journalists in Brazil. In support of this claim, 
the Petitioner has submitted: 
• His pay statements from I I for the months of November 2021 to January 2022; 
• His Brazilian Individual Income Tax Return for calendar year 2021; 
• "Salary Floor" information for journalists published by the Union of Professional 
Journalists in the State of Sao Paolo; 
• Salaries for journalists in Brazil, published by Glassdoor.com; 
• Job duties and requirements for "Parliamentary Assistant" positions withinl Iand 
• An excerpt from a February 2019 resolution passed by the Board of the Legislative 
Assembly of the State of Sao Paulo, which relates to staff appointment procedures and 
systems. 
8 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not submit evidence that his role as a "Parliamentary 
Assistant III" is comparable to the journalist positions that are included in the two submitted salary 
surveys, noting that both reflect salaries for journalists "working in various kinds of media such as 
newspapers, magazines, radio and TV." The Director also emphasized that he did not provide 
evidence to establish that his salary with I I is high "when compared to others in the position of 
Parliamentary Assistant III." 
Upon review, we disagree with the Director that the Petitioner did not provide an appropriate basis for 
a salary comparison. The evidence documenting the duties and professional qualifications required 
for the "parliamentary assistant III" position with I I indicate that the position performs "activities 
typical of the profession ofjournalist" and requires "professional registration as a journalist, as issued 
by the Ministry of Labor." Further, while the salary data provided by the Union of Professional 
Journalists in the State of Sao Paolo provides average wages for those employed by print media 
publications and radio and television, it also provides salary information for those employed by press 
offices. The record contains evidence that the Petitioner's position with I I was referred to 
internally as "press officer" based on the job title stated on his government-issued employee credential. 
However, the comparative salary information does not demonstrate that the Petitioner earned a high 
salary, or other significantly high remuneration, in relation to other similarly employed journalists. 
The "salary floor" published by the Union of Professional Journalists in Sao Paulo indicates "standard 
salaries" for journalists employed by press offices as R$ 4,057 or R$ 6,521 for 2021-2022 depending 
on whether they work a "5 hour floor" or "7 hour floor," presumably referring to the daily hours 
worked. The more general data provided by Glassdoor.com indicates that the average monthly salary 
for a journalist in Brazil is R$ 3,307, with a range extending from R$ 2,000 to R$ 7,000. 
The Petitioner's pay statements froml Iindicate that he received total monthly payments ranging 
from R$ 7025 to R$ 8786, which included a consistent "base salary" of R$ 3075. 71. His total monthly 
remuneration included a "legislative bonus" of over R$ 1800, a "representation bonus" of over 
R$ 1100 per month, and varying amounts of "food aid" and "health aid." The Petitioner's claim that 
he commanded a high salary therefore appears to be based on a comparison of his total monthly 
remuneration to the monthly salaries of other journalists. The record does not contain comparative 
data showing how his total remuneration compares to that of other journalists and therefore does not 
establish that such remuneration was "significantly high" as required by the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Further, the record does not show that the base salary reflected 
on his pay statements is high compared to that earned by other journalists. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
B. Summary and Reserved Issue 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner meets any of the four evidentiary criteria discussed 
above. Because the Petitioner cannot meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), detailed discussion of the remaining contested criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) cannot change the outcome of the appeal. Therefore, we reserve and will not address 
that remaining issue. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, 
federal agencies are not generally required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results 
9 
they reach); see also Matter ofD-L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 576-77 n. lO(BIA 2022) ( declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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 regulatory criteria as required under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 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 and conclude 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. USCIS has long held that even athletes 
performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" 
standard. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or international 
acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by 
Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered sustained 
national or international acclaim in the field, and that he is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed 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. 
10