dismissed EB-1A Case: Mathematics Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8303594 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 27, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a mathematics educator, seeks classification as an individual 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 Petitioner had 
established that he met only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, of which 
he must meet at least three. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not establish that 
he seeks to enter the United States to continue to work in his area of extraordinary ability or that his 
entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). The Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 
l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we agree with the Director's determination 
that the Petitioner did not meet at least three criteria . Accordingly, 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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a mathematics educator who has taught elementary and middle school students and 
coached competitive mathematics teams for these age levels in China. Most recently, he has been 
employed as the school principal and mathematics teacher for I I 
Education Training School. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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 ten alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner maintains that he submitted evidence to satisfy six 
criteria, summarized below: 
• (i) Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes; 
• (iii) Published material in professional publications or major media; 
• (iv) Participation as a judge of the work of others in his field; 
• (v) Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi) Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (ix) High salary or other high remuneration. 
The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x), relating to judging and scholarship of scholarly articles. The record reflects that the Petitioner 
served on the judging committee of the~World Mathl I Competition (China trials) and 
that he has co-authored and edited mathematics textbooks and other educational publications. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director misinterpreted and undervalued the significance of 
evidence submitted with respect to the remaining four claimed criteria. After reviewing all the 
2 
evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner does not meet at least three of the initial evidentiary 
criteria. 
Documentation of the individual'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) 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he received the prizes or awards, 
and they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field 
include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or 
international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 2 
The Petitioner claims that he satisfies this criterion based on his receipt of the following: 3 
• A certificate awarding the title of "China Mathematical Olympiad First Class Coach" by 
the Chinese Mathematical Olympiad Committee! , I 
• A certificate issuing the "Gold Award for Coaching" at the World Olympics Mathematics 
Competitil n (ChTa), based on "outstanding results" achieved by his students at China's 
final trials 
With resnect to the Pritioner's "First Class Coach" title, the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
I _ ofl I University, who states that he is associated with the 
China Mathematics Association and Mathematics Olympiad Committee. He indicates that according 
to the regulations of "China Olympics Mathematics" a "1st level coach" must "have a coaching record 
of winning national level competition as top three team" or "have a coaching record of winning at 
least 3 times, as top 3 team, at provincial level." In addition, I I stated that "the 
confirmation must be approved by the judging panel." 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted two additional reference letters 
that mention this title or award. I I who states that he is th~ I of the 
Organizing Committee of the World Olympics Math Competition (China), explains that "the standard" 
for awarding the First Level Coach title is: (1) "first, participating in the National Finals, the main 
instructors of the top three teams of the group"; and (2) "second, passing the training through the 
Chinese Mathematical Committee Olympic Committee Examinations and rigorous reviews will be 
eligible for propositions [sic] and judges in each division." He states that inl I the 
1 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. 
2 Id. 
3 The Petitioner initially provided a certificate indicating that his essay won second prize at th~I I Conference of 
the National Mathematics Teaching and Research Institute (elementary school category) inc=J However, on appeal, 
the Petitioner does not mention this prize or contest the Director's determination that he did not demonstrate that it satisfies 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
3 
Petitioner "successfully passed the assessment and won the title of National Mathematical Olympics 
National First Class Coach." 
The Petitioner's RFE response also included a second letter from.__ ________ __. He states 
that "the head coach of the top three teams in the final group will be evaluated. The winners will be 
awarded the title of China Mathematical Olympics first-level coach." He also states that "only the 
holders will be qualified to serve as judges and propositions [sic] for mathematics competitions in the 
country and in various regions." 
While all three of the submitted letters confirm the Petitioner's receipt of the First Class or First Level 
Coach award inLJ they do not contain consistent or sufficiently detailed information regarding the 
criteria for bestowing the title, which appears to be akin to a credential that allows a coach to serve as 
a judge than a "prize or award for excellence" as required by the regulation. We note that the certificate 
granting the Petitioner this title indicates that it was awarded "according to the Chinese Mathematical 
Olympiad Level Coaching Accreditation Regulations." The Petitioner did not nrorde a copy of these 
regulations but instead relied on the letters froml I and I whose statements 
lacked consistency. 
For example, I I initially stated that an individual could qualify for evaluation by coaching 
three top three teams at the provincial level, while the subsequent statements indicate that only those 
coaches whose teams place at the national finals may qualify. I !mentions that individuals 
must complete training and pass examinations in order to receive the title, whilel l's 
letters make no mention of these requirements. Overall, the information provided regarding the First 
Class Coach title appears to be incomplete, inconsistent, or both, and is not supported by corroborating 
evidence that would clarify the actual criteria used to bestow the title and the purpose for doing so. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that his First Level Coach title satisfies the plain language 
of this regulation. 
The Petitioner also claims eligibility under this criterion based on his "Gold Award for Coaching" 
received at the World Olympics Mathematics Jompetiyon (China), based on "outstanding results" 
achieved by his students at China's final trials i Initially, the Petitioner submitted a copy of 
the certificate without providing additional information regarding the award or its national or 
international significance. 
In response to the RFE, counsel for the Petitioner stated that the "Golden Coach A ward" is given to 
"only one head coach whose team captured gold medal in the national finals with full scores." In his 
letter J !states: 
The Organizing Committee of the World Olympic Mathematical Competition (China) 
Competition awarded the title of"Golden Coach" to the main instructor (1 person) who 
won the special gold medal ( out of the score) in the finals. So far, only nine coaches 
have won the highest honor in the Olympic Mathematical Competition ... , including 
[the Petitilner], lho won the title of"Olympic Mathematical Competition Gold Medal 
Coach" in 
4 
~----~Is letter also references the Petitioner's "Golden Coach" title and states that "the total 
number of outstanding coaches who won this award in China is less than ten." The Director 
acknowledged these letters but determined that the letters alone were insufficient to establish that the 
Petitioner's "Gold Award for Coaching" is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award 
for excellence in his field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a document titled i IWorld Mathematical Olympiad 
'China Region': Notice of Competition and Selection of National Team." According to this document, 
medals and certificates (including seven gold medals), are awarded to the top 20 teams, with "the head 
coach of the special gold team at the national final (1 person)" receiving a "gold coach award." The 
document indicates that the results of the national finals are announced on the "World Cup" website 
(www.womcn.com) but the Petitioner did not provide the results from this website or any other 
publicity or public announcement related to the competition at which he received his award. 
While this evidence appears to confirm that only one coach receives this award annually, it does not 
address the Director's concern regarding the lack of evidence demonstrating that the award is a 
nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence. This documentation does not 
demonstrate the recognition that the "gold coach" award received in the field beyond the awarding 
entity itself Without additional evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the field recognizes 
the aforementioned awards at a national or international level as awards for excellence. In light of the 
above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field.for which class[fication 
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) 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted two articles that are about him and relating to his 
work in the field: 
• 
.__ ___ _.' Published on Cultural People's Daily Media Plarform, sourced from Min 
Shen Weeki ht ://www.msweekl .com J 12019 . 
• 
.__ ______ __.published in Global Chinese Times,.__ __ _.2019. 
The Petitioner emphasized that the circulation of People's Daily is the ninth largest in the world among 
paid daily newspapers, according to 2014 rankings from W AN-IFRA' s World Press Trends Data. The 
Petitioner described Global Chinese Times as "a major Chinese newspaper widely circulated in the 
states of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut," but did not provide evidence of the paper's 
circulation figures or ranking in comparison to other publications. 4 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 7 (providing that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
5 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director acknowledged that People's Daily appeared on the 
W AN-IFRA report as a major daily newspaper as of 2014 but noted that the submitted rankings were 
outdated. Further, the Director emphasized that the submitted ranking list did not include Min Sheng 
Weekly or Cultural People's Daily Media Platform. In response, the Petitioner submitted additional 
evidence in support of its claim that People's Daily qualifies as major media in China, including more 
recent documentation regarding its ranking among Chinese newspapers. The Petitioner did not farther 
pursue his claim that the Global Chinese Times, which appears have an intended audience consisting 
of Chinese language speakers living in the New York metropolitan area, is a professional or major 
trade publication or other major media. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion, the Director acknowledged that People's 
Daily appears on rankings of top newspapers, but again noted that the Petitioner did not provide 
evidence related to Min Sheng Weekly or Cultural People's Daily Media Platform. The Director stated 
that "[ w ]hile USCIS notes that Cultural People's Daily Media Platform may be a component of 
People's Daily, this does not correspond to the published material presented." 
On appeal, counsel asserts: 
[The Director] misunderstood the "Cultural People's Daily Media Platform." It 
actually is a section of People's Daily, that is particularly designated for the topic of 
cultural events called "cultural media platform." In essence, the media report of the 
[Petitioner] is in People's Daily, on its section of Cultural Media Platform. This 
criterion, hence, has been met. 
Assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 
1988) (citing Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). Counsel's statements 
must be substantiated in the record with independent evidence, which may include affidavits and 
declarations. The Petitioner has not submitted evidence establishing that "Cultural People's Daily Media 
Platform" is a "section" of People's Daily, or that the I I 2019 article about him appeared in the 
print edition or online edition (www.people.cn) of People's Daily. 
The individual who translated the article provided a URL address indicating that the material he translated 
was from the website of Minsheng Weekly (msweekly.com), and we note that the article can be found at 
the address provided. As the record does not contain evidence of the circulation figures for Minsheng 
Weekly, or evidence demonstrating that the article was published in the print or online editions of People's 
Daily, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
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. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the 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. 
6 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "experts in the field across China universally consider [his] work 
important and his contributions significant" and points to testimonial evidence in the record and his 
claimed service as a "principal lecturer" on a children's mathematics television program. While the 
Petitioner generally asserts that the Director "downplayed the significance" of the testimonial 
evidence, we find no error in the Director's analysis of the submitted reference letters. The Director 
considered their content and concluded that they did not specify how the Petitioner's contributions 
rise to a level consistent with original contributions of major significance in the field. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for a petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). The opinions of experts in 
the field are not without weight and we have considered them below. 
The Petitioner provided several letters in support of the petition, but the authors did not specifically 
address how he has made an original contribution of major significance to the field of mathematics 
education. For example, the initial evidence included a letter from I I who is identified as the 
I !Mathematics Education Professional Committee of the China Education Association. 
The letter ap ears to have been submitted to confirm the Petitioner's receipt of a second prize award 
for his essay~------r----i:-r======r~ at theONational Mathematics Conference for 
Elementary and High Schools~~ I I commented that this was a "major national event" 
organized by the China Education Association, and explained that out of over 1,000 essays, a panel of 
five scholars chose seven first prize winners, 18 second prize winners and 56 third prize winners. The 
letter does not discuss how the Petitioner's prize-winning essay, or the curriculum reform issues 
addressed therein, has widely impacted or influenced the field, whether it has been published in a 
journal or other professional publication, or whether it has been cited by others. The record, therefore, 
does not support a finding that the Petitioner's essay is recognized in the field as an original 
contribution of major significance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also references the letters from I I ofl I University. 
One of his letters describes the criteria for confirmation as a "First Level Coach" of China Olympics 
Mathematics but does not discuss the Petitioner. The second letter froml I confirms that 
the Petitioner has received the titles of "First Class Coach" and "Golden Coach," and notes that he 
served as a judge in the0 World Olympic Mathematics Competition. I I states that 
the Petitioner "was recognized by the world for his outstanding talents and outstanding achievements" 
and that he "has made outstanding contributions to the popularization of the Chinese Olympic 
Mathematical Competition." While he summarizes the Petitioner's success as a mathematics coach 
and confirms his experience as a judge, he does not expand upon his claim that the Petitioner has 
individually contributed to the popularization of this mathematics competition in China or explain how 
his involvement with these competitions is recognized as an "original" contribution, or one that is 
majorly significant to the mathematics education field based on its impact and influence. 
Similarly, the letter froml !mentions the Petitioner's First Class Coach title, his experience as 
a judge of the~ Chinese national finals of the World Olympic Math Competition, and his 
participation as a member of the organizing committee for the competition's trials in China. He states 
5 We note that the Petitioner's LJd certificate indicates that he received his second prize award (for an essay with 
essentially the same title) at the annual cop.fu:f;nce of the National Mathematics Teaching and Research Institute in 
c=Jnot at the0annual conference held in LJ Based on the submitted cover letter, the Petitioner did not claim that 
he earned two different awards. 
7 
that the Petitioner has made "significant contributions to the Olympic Mathematical Competition 
(China) trials," but does not identify a specific novel or original contribution or explain how the 
Petitioner's involvement in these trials is consistent with a contribution of major significance that has 
had a major impact or influence in the field. 
Finally, the record includes a letter from I 11 lofl l's Press, 
confirming that the Petitioner has served as a chapter author and editor of a series of mathematics 
textbooks for elementary schools published by his company. He states that, over a period of ten years, 
"the total publication of those books written/edited by [the Petitioner] has been in excess of 900,000 
copies" and "they are among most widely circulated publications in the field." The record contains 
several Chinese Ian ua e books alon with translations of their covers. One of the books, 'I I 
'-------~----~~____.' a I I math book, identifies the Petitioner as an 
author/editor an~---~,......... s Publishing House as the publisher. The version provided is a "10 
Years Collector's Edition" whose cover states "Classic of 10 years, over a hundred thousand copies 
sold." The record does not contain supporting evidence indicating the actual number of copies 
published, sold or circulated in Chinese school systems. 
This evidence confirms that the Petitioner co-authored and co-edited a I I math textbook that is 
being used in some Chinese classrooms, but is not sufficient to establish that it is based on original 
concepts that are not found in other grade school math books, or to establish that this book and the 
Petitioner's other academic publications are recognized by the field as having a significant impact or 
influence on mathematics education in China. 
Overall, the letters, as well as other evidence in the record, reflect that the Petitioner's activities in his 
field extend beyond classroom teaching to authoring and editing educational mathematics materials 
and participating as a coach and sometimes judge for Chinese Mathematics Olympiad competitions 
The evidence, however, is insufficient to confirm that the level of attention he has received for these 
activities reflects that the field of mathematics education has regarded his work as authoritative or 
impactful. The Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual 
influence or high impact his work has had on the overall 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. 6 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics do not add value, and are not considered to 
be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 7 Moreover, USCIS need not 
accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. 
Dist. 1990). 
In addition to the submitted reference letters and evidence surrounding his publications and 
Mathematics Olympiad activities, the Director acknowledged counsel's claim that the Petitioner "has 
served as 'principal lecturer' at the TV program titled~--~-----------' which 
was broadcasted through I I Education TV Station." The Director correctly observed that 
counsel's assertion was not supported by any corroborating evidence of the Petitioner's participation 
in the referenced television program. On appeal, counsel references the Petitioner's service as a 
lecturer on this program and asserts that it "significantly promoted mathematics education." However, 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
7 Id. at 9. 
8 
the record remains devoid of documentary evidence corroborating counsel's assertion that the 
Petitioner appeared on.__ ______________ __. and otherwise lacks any information 
about this program and its influence. Assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
503, 506 (BIA 1980)). Counsel's statements must be substantiated in the record with independent 
evidence. 
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 that the individual has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion based on his salary and other remuneration received 
from.__ ___________ ~Education Training School. Initially, he submitted a letter 
from the school's vice president, who stated that the Petitioner served as principal and math teacher, 
with an annual salary of RMB 450,000 for the years 2013 through 2016. 
In his cover letter, counsel stated that the Petitioner's annual salary is equivalent to $72,000. He cited 
figures for middle and high school math teachers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Glassdoor 
in support of his claim that the Petitioner's annual salary is "higher than that of top 10% of math 
teachers in the United States, not to mention the average income of Chinese is only 30% of that of 
Americans." The initial evidence did not include supporting documentation related to the currency 
conversion used, the referenced comparative salary data, or the "average income of Chinese" relative 
to Americans. Further, we note that, as the Petitioner has only worked in China, salary surveys 
reflecting U.S. wages are not relevant to a determination of whether his salary is high in relation to 
others in his field. 8 
In the RFE, the Director requested copies of foreign tax documents or other evidence demonstrating 
the Petitioner's receipt of the stated salary froni O !Education Training School, and additional 
evidence to establish that the salary is high in relation to others, such as "geographical or position 
appropriate compensation surveys." The Petitioner did not respond to this request or reference this 
criterion in his response to the RFE. Accordingly, the Director determined that he did not meet the 
criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner now submits: (1) a copy of his employment contract indicating that his total 
remuneration package is RMB 486,000, paid annually; and (2) a "domestic payment business payment 
recent" showing that I I Educational Training School transferred RMB 486,000 to the 
Petitioner's Bank of China account in January 2018. In his brief: counsel cites U.S. salary figures for 
math teachers from Glassdoor, Payscale and ZipRecruiter and reiterates his assertion that "the 
[Petitioner] is receiving an annual salary of $70,000/yr which is equal to or higher than top 10% in the 
United States." He indicates that he is enclosing copies of the referenced salary surveys, but the 
submission on appeal does not include this documentation. 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 11 (instructing that individuals "working in different 
countries should be evaluated based on the wage statistics or comparable evidence in that country"). 
9 
We note that the Petitioner does not claim that the previously submitted evidence was sufficient to 
meet this criterion or claim that the Director's determination was otherwise erroneous based on the 
evidence before him at the time of the decision. When, as here, the record shows that a petitioner was 
put on notice of an evidentiary deficiency and was given an opportunity to address that deficiency, we 
will not accept evidence regarding that deficiency when offered for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., 
Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). 
Regardless, while the Petitioner has now submitted documentation of his past earnings, the record still 
lacks any comparative salary information for the Petitioner's occupation and geographical location. 
Even if the appeal submission included copies of the salary surveys referenced by counsel, we note 
that the relevant comparative information would relate to the occupation of school principal in the 
Petitioner's geographic location in China, rather than math teachers employed in the United States. 
Accordingly, we agree with the Director's determination that this criterion has not been met. 
B. Reserved Issues 
Based on the foregoing discussion, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has 
not met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, as required. Since the 
identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding whether he seeks "to enter the United States to 
continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" and whether his entry "will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States," under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii)-(iii) of the Act. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (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 criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance 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 
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). 
10 
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. 
11