dismissed EB-1A Case: Master Mariner

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe: 5845177 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 28, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a master mariner, seeks classification as an alien 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 Nebraska Service Center initially approved the petition. However, the Director 
subsequently revoked the approval, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. In addition, the Director found that the 
Petitioner did not establish that he will continue to work in his area of extraordinary ability. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 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). 
With respect to revocations, section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, states, in pertinent part, that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, 
revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
Regarding revocation on notice, the Board of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence ofrecord 
at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial 
of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The 
decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the 
decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner 
in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
By itself, the Director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. Id. The approval of a visa petition 
vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary 
step in the visa application process. Id. at 589. A beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the 
petition, entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner claims to be "currently emplo,_i_ed_a_s_a_M_a_st_e_r_w_i_th--=;--:------------~ 
I I .. on a 4+ month assignment on the [ !' 1 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). 
1 See appeal brief submitted on May 8, 2019. 
2 
In revoking the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the initial 
evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets six criteria, discussed below. After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the record does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
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 argues that he meets this criterion based on membership with the Foreign Owners 
Representatives and Ship Managers Association (FOSMA). 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 outstanding achievements in the field for which 
classification is sought. 2 
He submits two certificates from the "FOSMA Maritime Institute and Research Organisation 
[FOSMA MIRO]" reflecting his completion of a course in 1998 and refresher training in 2001. 
However, the certificates do not establish his membership with FOSMA; rather, they demonstrate that 
he participated and completed two courses offered by FOSMA MIRO. Further, the Petitioner did not 
offer evidence from FOSMA confirming his membership, nor did he show that only FOSMA members 
are permitted to attend FOSMA MIRO courses. 
In addition, he presents screenshots from fosma.net regarding background and objectives showing that 
FOSMA "provide[ s] body representative of the foreign owners and ship manager operating in India 
for the purpose of developing, promoting and protecting their business activities and the interest of 
foreign owners in India" and "encourage[ s] and promote[ s] cordial relationship and unanimity among 
representatives of foreign owners and ship managers on all subjects involving their common good." 
Moreover, the screenshots indicate that membership requires the applicant to be engaged in recruiting 
seafarers on behalf of ship managers or ship owners or placing seafarers with ship owners, registration 
with the Directorate General of Shipping as a recruitment service provider holding a valid license, 
charitable donation to FOSMA MIRO, and compliance and subscription to various fees. Here, the 
Petitioner did not establish that the requirements rise to the level of "outstanding achievements" 
consistent with this regulatory criterion. Instead, the membership requirements show involvement in 
recruitment, charitable donation, and fee payments, which are not tantamount to outstanding 
achievements. 3 
2 See USCIS 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 ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (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 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7 (instructing that relevant factors that may lead a conclusion 
that the alien's memberships in the associations were not based on outstanding achievements in the field include, but are 
not limited to, instances where the alien's membership was based solely on a level of education or years of experience in 
a particular field). 
3 
Moreover, the screenshots indicate that the membership application is "put up at the Board of Directors 
meeting." However, the Petitioner did not identify the members on the Board of Directors, nor did he 
establish that it is comprised of nationally or internationally recognized experts. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies 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 contends to fulfill this criterion based on teachin "at Academy as a visiting 
faculty [sic] the course.__ ____________________ ~" This regulatory 
criterion requires a petitioner to show that he has acted as a judge of the work of others in the same or 
an allied field of specialization. 4 He submits a letter froml I Academy stating that the Petitioner 
"has been teaching at our .__ ________ ~ACADEMY' as visiting faculty" on three 
occasions. In addition, he provides the course outline, time table, syllabus, and handout. Moreover, 
he presents "About Us" screenshots from I I com. 
Here, the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that he participated as a judge of the work of others 
consistent with this regulatory criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner did not establish how teaching 
students a course is tantamount to participating as a judge of the work of others. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate his designation as a judge, nor did he show that he actually judged the 
work of others in the same of similar field of specialization. In addition, the Petitioner did not identify 
who he judged. Without further documentation, his evidence regarding teaching a course is inadequate 
to satisfy this criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
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). 
The Petitioner argues that he "exhibits original contributions with each successful ship-to-ship (STS) 
operations" and his "operation of[] large tankers is in itself an indication of originality." In order to 
satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has he made 
original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 5 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. 
Although he references his submission of information relating to supertankers and the international 
maritime transportation field, as well as discussing various oil spills, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
how his contributions are considered both original and of major significance in the field. Moreover, 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
4 
the Petitioner did not establish how operating a ship, supertanker, or other large carrier is tantamount 
to an original contribution of major significance in-and-of-itself Here, the Petitioner did not show 
how operating a crude carrier without incurring incidences or causing a maritime disaster constitutes 
an original contribution of major significance. Further, we are not persuaded that each and every 
successful operation of a ship, either by the Petitioner or by any other master mariner, represents an 
original contribution of major significance in the field. 
Likewise, he offers recommendation letters from andl I 
who commented on the Petitioner's skills and experience. For instance, I I stated that 
"[t]here are fewer than 100 skilled, experienced and approved Mooring Masters in the world and [the 
Petitioner], is one among them." Moreover,~~----~indicated that the Petitioner "is a very 
experienced Mariner, serving on board as well as commanding all sizes of Oil Tankers in his extensive 
sea career." However, having a diverse, unique, or special skill set is not a contribution of major 
significance in-and-of-itself Further, the record must be supported by evidence that the Petitioner has 
already used those skills and talents to impact the field at a significant level, which he has not shown. 
Similarly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how his experience in the field somehow resulted in an 
original contribution of major significance. In addition, the letters do not establish the Petitioner's 
impact in the overall field beyond working for various employers. 6 
In the case here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the 
unusual influence or high impact his personal contributions have had on the general field. Letters that 
specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its 
impact on subsequent work add value. 7 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. 8 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, 
Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
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). 
The Petitioner claims that he "has prepared and authored several courses in his field." Moreover, he 
asserts that "[t]here are no scholarly journals in seafaring, but these course materials are comparable 
to scholarly articles for Mooring Masters because they are a prerequisite for seafarers on tankers," and 
"[t]here are no comparable peer-reviewed journals for international maritime transportation." 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
8 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd 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). 
5 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not 
readily apply to his occupation. 9 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 "comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 10 
Here, the Petitioner did not provide documentation supporting his assertion regarding the non­
existence of scholarly articles and journals. General assertions that any of the ten objective criteria do 
not readily apply to an occupation are not probative and should be discounted. 11 Furthermore, the fact 
that the Petitioner did not offer documentation that satisfies the scholarly articles criterion is not 
evidence that a master mariner could not do so. In addition, the Petitioner has not shown why he 
cannot submit evidence that meets at least three criteria. In fact, as indicated above, the Petitioner 
claims to meet five other criteria. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish how course materials at 
an academy are "truly comparable" to the authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 12 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he qualifies for the scholarly articles criterion 
through the submission of comparable evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find that the Petitioner does not satisfy any of the criteria discussed above. Although he submits 
evidence for two additional criteria on appeal, relating to leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), we need not reach these additional 
grounds. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve these issues. 13 Accordingly, 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 of his work reflects 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 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). Although 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
io Id. 
11 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
12 lcf. 
13 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like comts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
6 
the Petitioner has experience as a master mariner, the record does not contain sufficient evidence 
establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 14 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. 
14 As the Petitioner has not demonstrated his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. we need not 
consider whether he seeks to enter the United States to continue to work in his area of extraordinary ability under section 
203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
7