dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8865906 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV . 30, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a martial arts athlete and coach, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements through receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award or meeting three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
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)(l) 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 
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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a martial arts athlete and coach in the disciplines of taekwondo, muay thai, and 
hapkido. He provided evidence indicating that he intends to continue serving as a martial arts coach 
or trainer in the United States. 
A. One-Time Achievement 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have risen 
to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one-time 
achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying as 
major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 
1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. The House Report specifically cited to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement; other examples which enjoy major, 
international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and an Olympic 
Medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel 
Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless 
of the nationality of the awardees, reflects a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large 
cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time 
achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress 
that the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized as one of the top awards in the 
field. 
The Petitioner asserts that the gold medal he received as a member ofthel I team at theD 
International Taekwondo Federation (ITF)I I Championship inl I qualifies as a major, 
internationally recognized award. 1 The evidence of this award includes a photograph of a gold medal 
1 We take administrative notice that World Taekwondo, previously known as the World Taekwondo Federation (WTF), is 
recognized by the International Olympic Committee as "the worldwide legitimate governing body of the sport" and that 
taekwondo has been an official medal spo11 in the Olympic Games since 2000. See https://www.olympic.org/taekwondo, 
accessed on October 10, 2020. 
2 
from the event, a certificate identifying the national team ofl I as first place winners in the 
'----~-----~--' division, and pages from the website of the ITF confirming the results of 
this event. Although none of these items name the Petitioner, a letter from the State Agency for 
Tourism and Sport of thq I dated December 23, 1999, confirms that he was a member 
of this winning team and was subsequently conferred the title of"Master of Sport, International Class." 
In his decision, the Director noted that neither the medal nor the certificate name the Petitioner as the 
winner of this award. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "it is common for athletic awards not to 
include the names," and points to "extensive affidavits" which list awards received by the Petitioner. 
However, both the certificate and the results from the website of the ITF show that it was the team 
fro~ I which received the award, and neither item lists the names of the members of that 
team. Although the evidence shows that the Petitioner was a member of the awarded team, this gold 
medal was awarded by the ITF to recognize the achievement of the team as a whole, as opposed to 
other awards listed on the web page which were awarded for individual achievements. We therefore 
agree with the Director and find that the evidence does not establish that this award was granted in 
recognition of the Petitioner's achievements. 
In addition, even ifwe were to consider the award to have been granted to the Petitioner in recognition 
of his achievements, he has not established that it is a major, internationally recognized award. We 
note that the Petitioner did not initially claim that this award qualifies as such, but did so when 
responding to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). In that response, he referenced 
"documentation previously submitted" as well as new evidence taken from the website of the ITF. 
That website evidence provides a history of the federation and a list of world championship 
tournaments it has held, but does not establish that the award for the team .__ _____ ___, 
competition, or any of the other awards granted at those tournaments, receives the same level of 
international recognition as the awards mentioned above. While the record demonstrates that the 
team's success at this tournament was reported in a city weekly paper i~ I, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the tournament and its results were covered in top international media, or that the 
award is commonly known in the general public. For all of these reasons, we find that he has not 
established that the first place team award earned at the DITFI !championship qualifies as a 
major, internationally recognized award. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not 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 did not meet any of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets six of these criteria. After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that while the Petitioner has satisfied the initial 
evidence requirement for this classification by meeting three of the evidentiary criteria, he has not 
established that he has garnered sustained national or international acclaim as a martial arts athlete and 
coach, and is not among the small percentage at the top of the field of martial arts. 
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) 
3 
As discussed above, the first place award given to the I !national team at theCJITF ._I _ ____. 
Championship does not recognize the Petitioner, nor does the evidence show that it was received by 
him. However, the record includes evidence of other prizes or awards which he did personally receive. 
These include several he earned for his participation as a martial arts athlete, such as placing in the 
national taekwondo championships i~ I in 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2006, and in the country's 
muay thai championships in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2014. As these were demonstrated to 
be top events in the field at the national level, they meet the plain language of this criterion. The 
Petitioner also submitted evidence of placings in other types of martial arts competitions, including 
hapkido, but the record does not include evidence showing that these were top national or international 
awards, or that the Petitioner garnered national or international recognition as a martial artist due to 
these placings. 
In addition, the record includes certificates for two awards the Petitioner received as a coach or trainer 
in taekwondo. Both certificates indicate that he received them "for outstandin] training of athletes" 
at the 2013 and 2016 editions of the Open Championship of the I in Taekwondo (ITF). 
However, the Petitioner did not provide evidence regarding the criteria for receiving the award, how 
many of these certificates were awarded at these events, or any additional information about the awards 
to show that they are recognized at the national or international level. 
Accordingly, based upon the national-level awards received by the Petitioner as a taekwondo and 
muay thai athlete, we disagree with the Director and find 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 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Director, while not referring to specific evidence in his decision, found that the evidence submitted 
under this criterion was either not about the Petitioner, did not include the required information about 
the publication of the material, or was not published in one of the qualifying t~pes of publication. On 
appeal, the Petitioner focuses on one article which was published inl I 
I ] on July 18, 1997. That article, I I focuses l"--'-""'---'-'"'i-itioner and his 
background while discussing thel !national team's victory at th...__ .......... ........._ __ .................. <+,Pionship. 
In addition, the record includes evidence concerning the circulation of.__ ______ __,, including 
a letter from the chief editor of the newspaper stating that at the time of publication this was 55,000 
copies. Additional information from two websites, BBC News and Press Reference, generally 
supports that figure and indicates that the newspaper is one of a small number of major newspapers in 
thd I Therefore, based upon this single article, we disagree with the Director and find 
that the Petitioner 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 specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Petitioner submitted copies of certificates showing his certification as an "A Class (International)" 
hapkido judge in 2014, and as an international level referee and judge by the International Federation 
4 
of Muay Thai Amateur (IFMA) in 2016. As proof of his service as a hapkido judge, he submitted a 
letter fro~ I President ofthel IHapkido Martial Arts Federation, listing several 
competitions judged by him i~ lfrom 2011 to 2016. However, an earlier letter frorr0 
~ dated May 24, 2018, indicates that the Petitioner has served as a hapkido judge since May 6, 
2012, and confirms only the two most recent instances at tournaments in 2016. The Petitioner must 
resolve these inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the 
truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA~Here, he has not explained the 
difference between the date of his certification and the dateL___J states that he became a judge, 
how he was able to participate as a judge prior to obtaining his certification, and why I listed 
a competition that he judged in 2011 in one letter but stated that he began judging in 2012 in the other. 
These discrepancies, and the lack of an explanation of them, significantly decrease the evidentiary 
value oti I letters. We farther note that the list of competitions in I l letter is not 
supported by corroborating evidence of his participation as a judge at those competitions. 
R~garding Ts participation as a judge of muay thai competitions, the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
th Muay Thai Federation listing competitions in Central Asia and Thailand from 2007 to 
2018. As with the evidence regarding his judging of hapkido competitions, the Petitioner does not 
explain how he was able to participate as a judge prior to earning his certification in 2016. However, 
in this case, the Petitioner submitted coP,ies of three photographs which provide sufficient evidence to 
corroborate his claim to have judged th~ I in Muay Thai on August 24, 2016. In 
addition, he provided evidence that the duties of a judge in a muay thai competition include scoring 
the competitors and identifying a winner, versus only enforcing rules of conduct. We therefore 
disagree with the Director and find that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
As discussed above, upon review we find that the Beneficiary meets three of the evidentiary criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and has therefore met the initial evidence requirement for this 
classification. Accordingly, we will not consider whether he also meets additional criteria, but will 
instead consider all of the evidence in the record in performing a final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Because the Petitioner submitted the requisite 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 that 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 Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. 2 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
2 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 4 (Dec.22.2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (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). 
5 
As we discussed above when considering the evidence of awards the Petitioner has received as a 
martial arts athletbejk evidence shows that he was successful in national taekwondo (ITF and WTF) 
competitions in th._________ I early in his career. He was a member of the national tae~ 
(ITF) team from and was a member of the team which won first place at the D ITF L__J 
I Is that year. However, despite several letters indicating that he continued to be a member 
of the national team up until the time of filing, the record does not include evidence of his participation 
as an athlete in ITF or WTF sanctioned taekwondo competitions outside of thel I after 
1997 as would be expected of a national team member. For exam le an article ublished in the 
on May 17, 2005, titled 
~--------------------~ ' states that the Petitioner was a winner in his 
weight class, and that the national team would compete in upcoming student games in Turkey, the 
Asian Games for juniors, and later the Central Asian Games. However, the record lacks evidence of 
his participation in these competitions, whether in the form of prizes earned, media reports or official 
published results. Therefore, although the evidence shows that, as an athlete, he was a member of the 
national taekwondo team of thq I it does not show that he played an active role on the 
team or competed against taekwondo athletes at the international level after this single tournament in 
I I and thus that he received acclaim as an athlete and member of the team at the national or 
international level. 
In addition, the evidence demonstrates that later in his career as a martial arts athlete, the Petitioner 
had success at national-level muay thai competitions over several yearr He also sJbmitted a certificate 
showing that he placed third in th~ lin muay thai at the,___ __ ___,of Martial Arts held 
in I !Ukraine in I 12010. However, although several reference letters mention the 
Petitioner's receipt of this award, the record does not include evidence regarding the prestige of this 
award, the number and level of competitors at the event, or media coverage of the event or its results. 
This evidence is therefore not sufficient to show that as a result of placing third in this tournament, the 
Petitioner garnered national or international acclaim or achieved standing among top muay thai 
athletes. Further, despite several reference letters indicating that he served as an athlete and coach of 
the national muay thai team of thel lsince 2004, this is the only evidence which 
indicates that the Petitioner competed in a tournament outside of the country against international 
caliber athletes. 
Also relating to his membership as an athlete on thel rs national taekwondo (ITF) 
team as well as the national muay thai and hapkido teams, the record does not show that these 
memberships placed him among the small percentage of martial artists at the top of the field. In 
particular, several reference letters regarding the Petitioner's membership on the national taekwondo 
(ITF) team were submitted, including some written by authors who state that they personally reviewed 
his achievements when making the membership decision. One was written by I I I lof the Taekwondo Federation of I I who states that membership is 
exclusively granted to athletes and coaches with "a consistent track record of outstanding 
achievements in this sport." He goes on to state that both his admission as an athlete in 1997, and his 
promotion to head coach of the team in 2013, "were recommended by" another taekwondo athlete and 
the then head coach of the national taekwondo team. Both of those individuals also submitted 
reference letters containing nearly identical text. The letters indicate that both individuals reviewed 
the Petitioner's "track record of achievements" and "made a conclusion that [the Petitioner's] 
achievements in the[se] field[s] ... were indeed outstanding." In addition, both letters indicate that 
6 
~----~I national taekwondo (ITF) team "only selects the best of the best and is highly 
selective." 
Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). 
Although all three letters include multiple instances of the words "outstanding" and "achievement," 
thus repeating the language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), none of them identify exactly 
which of the Petitioner's achievements were considered to qualify him for membership on the team or 
for his promotion to the head coach position, despite the fact that two of them were written by 
individuals who claim to have recommended these actions. I I lists several awards 
received after the Petitioner was made a member of the team, but does not refer to any awards or other 
achievements which he considers to be outstanding and which led to the Petitioner's initial 
membership and coaching position. The letters do not provide details about the standards generally 
used in selecting national team members or coaches, nor do they explain how those standards were 
applied in the Petitioner's case, and they therefore do not show that the Petitioner had proven himself 
to stand out from his peers at the national level. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence that he received the title of "Master of Sport," presumably as 
a result of his successes in national-level competitions. Specifically, the record includes a letter from 
~---~------~Agency for Tourism and Sport, dated December 2 1 h 
acknowledges his receipt of the title "Master of Sport, International Class, ~--.===~~=. 
II #79, order #263 ofl ~' In addition, the record includes two certificates~--~ 
c:==::J:me of which was issued for this title in "Taekwondo ITF" and the other for "Taekwondo." 
However, these certificates are numbered as "License #160" and "Certificate #08," respectively, 
neither of which matches the certificate number mentioned in the letter. In addition, despite the 
certificates listing the same date of issue, the photographs of what appear to be the Petitioner are 
dramatically different, with the second showing him with a beard and receding hairline that are missing 
in the first. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Other certificates bestowing the Master of Sport title on the Petitioner were also submitted, including 
in pankration from the "World Pangration Athlima Federation," and in muay thai. However, as with 
the taekwondo certificates discussed above, the Petitioner has not provided evidence regarding the 
criteria for issuance of these certificates and titles, how many are issued, or that he garnered national 
or international acclaim as a result of receiving them. 
As noted above regarding the criterion relating to published material about the Petitioner, although he 
submitted several articles which either mentioned h~eported his results in competitions among 
those of other athletes, only one article published inl__Jfocused on him and provided details about 
his career as a martial arts athlete. This evidence indicates that despite his success as an athlete in 
national-level competitions, he did not receive sustained attention or acclaim in either general media 
or publications focused on sports. 
Turning to the Petitioner's career as a martial arts coach, the endeavor which he intends to pursue in 
the United States, he submitted certificates, letters and other materials which indicate that he has 
7 
served as head coach of thd !national taekwondo (ITF) team since 2013, the national hapkido 
junior team since 2016, and head coach for physical training of the national muay thai team since 
2004. As previously noted, he received two certificates, in 2013 and 2016, for "outstanding training 
of athletes" in ITF taekwondo. However, no information was provided about these certificates, and 
therefore this evidence does not demonstrate that he received national or international acclaim as a 
taerkwondo coach. 
In addition, letters from officials of the national federations of each sport list the names of some of the 
students who have been coached by the Petitioner. For instance.I I lists three athletes 
that the Petitioner coached as members of the national taekwondo (ITF) team, including one who he 
indicates received awards years prior to the Petitioner's appointment as a coach. Although certificates 
were submitted showing that that student won an award in 2008 ( a second certificate is undated), this 
evidence does not indicate that the Petitioner had any part in the student's receipt of that award. 
Several other letters from athletes who state that they trained under the Petitioner's guidance were 
submitted, all of which follow the same organization and include identical language, suggesting the 
language in the letters is not the authors' own. Cf Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 
438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding an immigration judge's adverse credibility determination 
in asylum proceedings based in part on the similarity of some of the affidavits); Mei Chai Ye v. US. 
Dept. of Justice, 489 F .3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007) ( concluding that an immigration judge may 
reasonably infer that when an asylum applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is 
the common source). The shared organization and text in these letters indicates that they share a 
common source, and thus reduces their evidentiary value. 
Further, several of the letters state that the Petitioner was responsible for coaching an athlete named 
......------.------,I and lists among his accom lishments the receipt of a silver medal at th~ 
Mua Thai Cham ionship in Sweden. However, a letter from the Muay Thai 
Federation'---,------,--....,...-------,--' indicates tha ~------_.(different spelling then in all of 
the letters) trained under several coaches, including the "Head Coach of the I I I ~ but does not mention the Petitioner. As with the discrepancies in the Master of Sport 
certificates, these discrepancies in the letters must be resolved by independent evidence. Ho, at 591-
92. Here, we note that other evidence in the record also introduces discrepancies regarding the 
Petitioner's role with the national muay thai team. Specifically, an article dated September 13, 2016 
from the website I I J is about the "thai boxing" team training for thel I Games, 
and mentions that athletes, including~------ are "consulted by the Federation head coach 
I I Although the article also mentions that the athletes attended a "seminar" held by the 
Petitioner, he is identified as the president of his own fight club and as an international category referee 
and judge, and his role is stated as explaining "what techniques the referees want to see this year." As 
such, although this article verifies that the Petitioner provided guidance to muay thai athletes during 
this seminar, it does not support the claims that he acted as a coach of the national team or had any 
significant influence in its training. 
In addition to the article discussed above, another article, which was taken from the website 
I 1 0 1 ~ and is dated May 10, 2016, consists of an interview o±i~----~I and once again 
identifies him as the coach of thel I national muay thai team. The Petitioner is 
mentioned only as one of his many trainees. 
8 
In summary, although the evidence establishes that the Petitioner has been successful as an athlete in 
national-level martial arts competitions, it does not demonstrate that he has enjoyed sustained national 
or international acclaim. Also, the evidence of only limited participation in international-level martial 
arts tournaments does not support a finding that he is one of the small percentage of athletes at the top 
of the field. In addition, the evidence of his career as a martial arts coach does not show that he has 
earned sustained acclaim for this second phase of his career in the martial arts. Further, considering 
the numerous inconsistencies in the evidence regarding all aspects of his career as a martial arts athlete, 
coach and referee which have not been resolved, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner 
qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 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 section203(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 that 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 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