dismissed EB-1A Case: Law Enforcement Training

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20009651 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 1, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a police officer specializing in training, 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 )(1 )(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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals 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. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 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. Id. (discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if 
fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); 
see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 
2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner joined Brazil's! I Police in 2005. 
He began teaching courses for officers in 2008, and in 2014, he became an instructor at the 
I I University of the I I I inl I occasionally serving as a substitute 
division chief there. Since 2020, he has been in the United States as an F-1 nonimmigrant student, 
studying for a master's degree in educational leadership, management, and emerging technologies at 
I I University inl I Florida. He has also competed in the martial art of jiu­
jitsu at the international level. After completing his degree and gaining "two or three years of 
experience working for a United States company," the Petitioner intends to establish a company that 
"will provide a variety of security training services to organizations and businesses in the United 
States" and "assist companies with their security and firearms needs." 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Petitioner claims a one-time achievement in athletics s ecifically a silver medal in thel 
class at the 2020 Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation Jiu­
Jitsu Championship inl I Florida, in 2020. In the alternative, the Petitioner 
asserts, on appeal, that the medal amounts to a lesser internationally recognized award to satisfy 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Whatever the other facts and claims surrounding the award, the Petitioner has not established that his 
intended employment in the United States would be as a competitive athlete. The evidence submitted 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) must establish recognition of a petitioner's achievements in his or her 
field of expertise. But here, the Petitioner claims a major award in the field of athletics, while his 
other evidence all falls under the different broad heading of education. While we consider the totality 
of the evidence, the Petitioner seeks a conflation of different fields, with some elements of acclaim 
drawn from athletics and other from education. While the Petitioner performed well at one recent 
international jiu-jitsu competition, the record as a whole indicates that his claimed area of expertise, 
2 
and his area of intended future employment, is law enforcement training and education, rather than 
competitive martial arts. 
The Petitioner contends that martial arts are relevant to law enforcement because officers benefit from 
such training, and he states that the0encourages police officers to enter sports competitions. He 
also shows that a training course that he designed includes jiu-jitsu techniques. Nevertheless, the 
Petitioner's personal success at competitive jiu-jitsu appears to be peripheral to his stated career of 
law enforcement training. 
Because the Petitioner has not shown that he received a major, internationally recognized award in his 
intended field, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i}­
(x). The Petitioner claims to have satisfied six of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met only one of the criteria, because his high-ranking 
positions at I I amount to leading or critical roles for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the criteria pertaining to 
prizes; participation as a judge; original contributions; and high remuneration. 
Upon consideration, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied two other claimed criteria. The 
Petitioner has served on various boards and committees that included evaluative functions, and he has 
thereby participated as a judge of the work of others. The Director concluded that this activity was 
"part of his employment duties." The regulation, as currently worded, broadly applies to judging 
activity. Whether the judging indicates acclaim is a question to address in the final merits 
determination. 
The Petitioner has also shown that he received the highest level of compensation from the The 
Director discounted the evidence of compensation because it included all police officers, not just high­
ranking officials; but it remains that, according to the documentation submitted, there is no salary 
grade in the above what the Petitioner received. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Because the Petitioner submitted the required initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and whether his 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if their successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the 
field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
3 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not established 
sustained national or international acclaim, and, therefore, has not established eligibility. 
The record shows that the Petitioner has fulfilled important roles atl I and in so doing he has 
influenced law enforcement training in Brazil at a national level. The statutory threshold, however, is 
not influence, authority, or success, but sustained national or international acclaim. The evidence 
submitted does not rise to that very high standard. 
The record shows that the Petitioner has risen to positions of considerable responsibility at l __ 
including designing at least one course of instruction and evaluating others, and also writing materials 
used in police training courses. He also presented studies recommending improvements in training 
methods, such as adopting virtual reality training simulators. These activities have had some influence 
one=] training in Brazil, and the Petitioner has received recognition for his work in these areas, which 
we acknowledge by proceeding to a final merits determination. 
But the Petitioner has not shown that his activities have brought him sustained national or international 
acclaim, or that the recognition he has received for his work (such as certificates identifying specific 
contributions and activities) amounts to such acclaim. 
Regarding the Petitioner's compensation, he has shown that he has achieved the highest base pay rate 
in the and he has also shown that he receives additional remuneration for participatil g in 
educational activities. The record does not show the complete range of activities for which 
officers might receive extra pay of this nature, nor does it show how the Petitioner's total remuneration 
compares with that of the highest-paid individuals employed by the The evidence submitted 
therefore satisfies the first step in the analysis, that it generally meets the criteria of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix), but does not satisfy the second step of analysis that it more broadly indicates 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner has represented the and at international gatherings and on other occasions, 
such as "technical visits to the I Police Department and the I I Police." 
The record does not establish how the Petitioner was selected to participate in these activities, and he 
has not shown that they resulted in, or were, themselves, the result of, sustained national or 
international acclaim. An individual can represent their organization in exchange visits of this kind 
without reaching the very top of the field of endeavor as contemplated at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
In summary, while the Petitioner has documented a long and successful career with Brazil' sc=] with 
some influence over the material presented atl he has not cleared the much higher threshold 
of sustained national or international acclaim. 
1 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (stating that USCIS officers should then 
evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, 
by a preponderance of the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
We have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion 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. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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 recognition of his work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990); see also section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 
that the Petitioner 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). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5