dismissed EB-1A Case: Metalworking

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7302905 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 23, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a metalworking and design firm, seeks classification of the Beneficiary, an "artist 
blacksmith," as an individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first preference classification makes immigrant 
visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that although the 
Petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary satisfied three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, as 
required, it did not establish that he has sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate 
that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director misinterpreted or disregarded persuasive evidence 
that is sufficient to establish the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
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 a beneficiary's 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 it must provide sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that the 
beneficiary 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 beneficiary 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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a firm that drafts, fabricates, renders and installs ornamental metalwork for residential 
and commercial architectural projects, currently employs the Beneficiary as an "artist blacksmith." 
The Beneficiary completed his blacksmith qualification at a H~ian vocational school in 1994 and 
received a certificate in "Blacksmith Advanced Studies" fromL__JUniversity of Applied Sciences -
Institute of Design and Fine Arts i~ lin 2001. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary 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 Petitioner submitted evidence relating to seven of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary met three of the criteria, 
relating to published material in major trade publications or other major media, display of his work at 
artistic exhibitions or showcases, and performing in a leading or critical role for organizations that 
have a distinguished reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (vii) and (viii). However, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that the Beneficiary met the criteria for lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized awards, memberships in associations in his field, original contributions 
2 
of major significance, and high salary or other significantly high remuneration at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (v) and (ix). Ultimately, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not 
established the Beneficiary's eligibility in the final merits analysis. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "inappropriately discounted individuals in the field 
who are aware of the facts and reputation of the beneficiary." The Petitioner emphasizes that USCIS 
has already found that the Beneficiary has satisfied three of the ten criteria and asserts that the totality 
of the record supports a conclusion that he has risen to the top of his field. 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we disagree with the Director's determination that 
the evidence submitted establishes that the Beneficiary meets at least three of the initial evidentiary 
criteria. We agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not establish that the 
Beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
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) 
The Petitioner submitted the following evidence relating to this criterion: 
• 20171 !Award for Craftmanship and Artisanship, awarded to the Petitioner for 
'l.__~--~~-~---------~-----c=---'I" 
• ~l_s_t _P_l_a_c_e_ce_rt_1_· f_ic_a_te_f_o_r~--~at_i_on __ in_t_h_e_ex_h_1_·b_it_i_on __ o_f _w_o_rk_s_a_t_t_h_e_2~nd=I ======= 
'----------============;------'-'- (2001) 
• at the 4th National 3rd Place Diploma in the 
I !(Hungary, 2005) 
With respect to the I IA ward awarded to the petitioning company, we note that according 
to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that 
the individual beneficiary is the actual recipient of the prizes or the awards. 1 While the Petitioner 
submitted letters explaining that the Beneficiary played a key role in the award-winning project, it 
remains that he is not the recipient of the award. An October 2018 letter from thel I 
L--------,----,--,.....,........,....--r-'-sc..;;t=at'""'e=s....;.;th=a=t-"7 the Petitioner's] work and [ the Beneficiary] as a team member 
was recognized with the .__ ____ __.Award." However, the Petitioner did not provide evidence 
that the Beneficiary received any formal individual recognition from thel I contemporaneous with 
the granting of his employer's award. 
With respect to the two remaining awards, the Petitioner did not provide any information or evidence 
regarding these awards beyond the award certificates themselves. While the certificates name the 
Beneficiary as the recipient, the record does not establish the national or international significance of 
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 ADl 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that for this criterion, the focus should be on an 
individual's receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to his or her employer's receipt of the awards or prizes). 
3 
the awards. 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 fact that the events were 
designated as "national" or "international" is not sufficient to establish that the awards the Beneficiary 
received are nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in his field. 
For these reasons, we agree with the Director's determination that the Beneficiary does not meet this 
criterion. 
Documentation of the individual'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 claimed that the Beneficiary meets this criterion based on his membership in the 
Hungarian Blacksmith Guild. The Petitioner submitted a June 2015 letter froml I Guild 
Master, who states that the guild only admits new members "who know blacksmith craft in an excellent 
manner and create pieces of work of high artistic standard." Regarding the Beneficiary's membership, 
I I states: "In 1996, he applied for membership before the committee by presenting pieces of 
work that prove his perfect possession of professional knowledge and his artistic talent and he got 
admitted based on the unanimous decision of the guild assembly." 
Based on this limited information regarding the membership selection criteria and process, the 
Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish that the Beneficiary, who was 19 or 20 years old at the 
time of admission to the Hungarian Blacksmith Guild, was required to demonstrate "outstanding 
achievements" in his field, as judged by recognized national or international experts, as a condition 
for membership. 
We note thatj I also states that the Beneficiary "fulfilled the function of the notary" between 
2012 and 2014, and the Petitioner stated in its own letter that he "was appointed distinguished 
member" of the Hungarian Blacksmith Guild during that same time period. However, the record does 
not contain any further information regarding the requirements for appointment as a notary or as a 
"distinguished member." Other than the referenced letter froml I the Petitioner has not 
provided any other primary documentation from the guild, such as its by-laws or similar evidence, that 
addresses its membership requirements or criteria. For these reasons, we agree with the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets 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/or 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) 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra at 6. 
4 
The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to meet this criterion, and 
specifically referenced an article that appeared in Daily News Hungary. As explained below, upon de 
nova review, we conclude the Petitioner has not established that the referenced article or other 
submitted published material meet all requirements set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Therefore, we will withdraw the Director's determination that this criterion was 
met. 
With respect to the article from Daily News Hungary, we note that the Petitioner did not offer 
supporting evidence establishing that this publication, which does not appear to be a professional or 
major trade publication, qualifies as major media in Hungary. 3 The Petitioner did not provide, for 
example, circulation statistics showin how its circulation com ares to that of other dail news a ers 
in Hungary. The article, entitled .__-------~-----~-------------' 
I I" is primarily about the Petitioner's president, who was interviewed by the 
publication for the article, and the Petitioner's~----~ Award-winning project. The article 
explains thatl !selected the Beneficiary and another Hungarian blacksmith for the project 
and mentions that they both worked with him in the past, but the article is not about the Beneficiary. 
Another article, entitled ~----------------~' was published online by 
Kozterkep. While the article is about the Beneficiary's work on a war memorial built in the Hungarian 
town ofl I the article does not identify the author of the material and is not accompanied by a 
certified English translation. Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a foll 
English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English 
language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from 
the foreign language into English. Id. Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified 
English language translation of the document, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the 
translated material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's claims. In any event, the Petitioner 
did not submit any additional information regarding Kozterkep, such as its circulation statistics and 
intended audience, to establish that it is considered a major trade publication, professional publication 
or other major media. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted an article entitled .__ ________________ ___. 
.__ ___________ __." While this article is accompanied by a translator's certificate of 
accuracy, the translator identified the source of the article solely as "Website Article 2015." The 
record does not include the original article in the Hungarian language, or the title, author, and date of 
the material. 
None of the other published materials submitted by the Petitioner mention the Beneficiary's name and 
therefore are not about him and his work in the field. 4 Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 7 (instructing that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publication or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics and show the intended audience of the publication). 
4 This evidence includes: another article from an unidentified Hungarian newspaper for which the author. title and date of 
publication were not provided; an excerpt of a book chapter that discusses the Petitioner's '=====,!;,A ward-winning 
project; an Architectural Digest article which briefly mentions the Petitioner's receipt of c1 I I Award; and an 
article from the professional publication The Anvil's Ring which is about the Hungarian Blacksmith Guild and includes an 
interview with one of its members. 
5 
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 not only that 
the beneficiary has made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the 
field. For example, a petitioner may show that the beneficiary's 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. 
With respect to this criterion, the Petitioner indicated that it was submitting testimonial letters 
"attesting to the fact that [the Beneficiary's] work has made a significant contribution to the world of 
blacksmiths." The Petitioner also mentioned that it was providing letters discussing the Beneficiary's 
work on the above-referenced war memorial in the town ofl I Hungary, a letter from the Artist­
I L and an advisory opinion from the President of 
the._l _ _, 
The testimonial evidence in the record indicates that the Beneficiary's technical and artistic skills as a 
blacksmith are highly regarded by his peers and experts in the field. 5 However, the letters do not 
identify with specificity an original contribution he has made or explained how he has remarkably 
impacted or influenced the field. For exam]le, the "peer consultation and recommendation" letter 
froml [ president of thel addresses the Beneficiary's use of "old techniques" on 
the Petitioner's award-winning project which involved the fabrication of c=] University's new 
campus gates. She notes that the methods used on the original gates, which had been fabricated more 
than a century ago, were widely used in Eastern Europe but are not common in the United States. She 
did not explain, however, how the techniques the Beneficiary learned in Hungary represent an 
"original contribution," or address their impact on the field. While the project received an award and 
some attention in the architectural field, neitherl Is letter nor the evidence as a whole 
indicate that the Beneficiary himself has been recognized for making an original contribution of major 
significance based on his work. 
The letter froml I president of the I I also notes the Beneficiary's "knowledge and 
experience of traditional methods," mentions his work on the Duniversity project, and states that 
"the level of skills demanded for such work is superior to that of a normally proficient artisan." D I I of I I Studios states that the Beneficiary's "masterful handling of hand forged 
iron on the gates at the Residential College aO are [a] true testament to the dedication of his love 
for fine metalwork," and indicates that "the finished project is a monument for future blacksmiths to 
study and admire for true craftsmanship." The Petitioner also provided a letter from I I 
Mayor ofl lwho notes that the Beneficiary's design for the town's World War II memorial 
was chosen "from a large pool of applicants," and praises him as "an accomplished artist of great 
distinction in the metal craft." 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Beneficiary's mastery of skills and 
Old World techniques and traditions in his craft without providing specific examples of how he has 
made original contributions to the field, or contributions that rise to a level consistent with major 
5 While we address only a sampling ofletters here, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
significance in the field. Letters from experts may add value if they specifically articulate how a 
petitioner's original contributions are of major significance and what impact they had on subsequent 
work, while 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. 6 For these reasons, we agree with the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the individual's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary meets 
this criterion. The record demonstrates that the Beneficiary has displayed his work at national 
blacksmith exhibitions and other events that qualify as artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Director determined that the Beneficiary met this criterion based on evidence that he performs a 
critical role for the petitioning company as a master artist - blacksmith. The record adequately supports 
the Director's determination and contains sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner enjoys 
a distinguished reputation in its niche industry of architectural metalworking. Accordingly, we agree 
that this criterion has been met. 
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) 
To establish eligibility under this criterion, the Petitioner must present evidence showing that the 
Beneficiary has earned a high salary or significantly high remuneration in comparison with those 
performing similar services in the field. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos 
v. US. Dept. o_f Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding salary information 
for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the field). 
The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary earns $32.00 per hour ($66,500 annually) and provided 
copies of his IRS Form W-2 for 2017 and recent pay statements issued to him in 2018. 
The Petitioner also submitted screenshots from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics 
(www.bls.gov/OES) indicating that the annual mean wage for the occupational category of "Craft 
Artists" (which includes blacksmiths) in thel I metropolitan area is $59,550. 
The Petitioner also provided a screenshot from Salary Expert and emphasized that it demonstrates that 
the average base salary for a blacksmith in the Beneficiary's geographic location is $51,550, thus 
indicating that the Beneficiary's salary is comparatively high. However, the information provided 
from Salary Expert indicates that the average salary for a "senior level blacksmith" with at least eight 
years of experience is $62,722. The Beneficiary has significantly more than eight years of experience, 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
7 
and the evidence does not reflect that his earnings are "significantly high" in comparison to average 
wages earned by senior level blacksmiths. 
Overall, the information provided reflects that the Beneficiary's past earnings have been, at most, 
slightly above average for a blacksmith in his area and with his level of experience. The Petitioner 
has not established that he has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in 
relation to others in the field. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Although we disagree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner submitted evidence to meet 
three criteria, we will briefly consider the final merits determination already conducted by the Director, 
and the Petitioner's response on appeal. In a final merits determination, we analyze a beneficiary's 
accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his successes are sufficient to 
demonstrate that he has 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. The Petitioner must 
establish by a preponderance of the evidence, the Beneficiary's sustained national or international 
acclaim, 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. 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary was admitted to the Hungarian Blacksmith Guild at a young 
age in 1996, was well-trained in traditional Eastern European artistic metalworking techniques, and 
has displayed his work at artistic displays and exhibitions in Hungary between the years of 2000 and 
2005, where he was twice recognized for his work with first and third place awards at blacksmith 
meetings and gatherings. I I also states that the Petitioner artici ated in other "professional 
events" of the Hungarian Blacksmith Guild includin a 2002 a "Style Practices" master 
course in 2006, and a 2007 exhibition in the.__ __________ __. but these activities are not 
otherwise documented in the record and their significance has not been explained. 
While this evidence indicates that the Petitioner was an active member of the guild and a regular 
participant in displays and exhibitions of his craft, the record does not support a finding that these 
early-career activities and achievements required, reflected, or resulted in national or international 
acclaim or are indicative of the Beneficiary being in the small percentage at the very top of the field. 
As noted, the Petitioner did not provide evidence that membership in the Hungarian Blacksmith Guild 
was based on the Beneficiary's prior outstanding achievements or provide evidence of the significance 
of the Beneficiary's individual awards. Nor did it demonstrate that the displays or exhibitions of his 
work, or the awards he received at those exhibitions, elicited attention from the media, or even from 
the field outside of those participating at the blacksmith meetings. 
Apart from the above-referenced evidence related to the Beneficiary's early career, the record contains 
sparse information regarding his career and achievements between the mid-2000s and 2015, when he 
joined the petitioning company. The Petitioner submitted a letter of reference fromc::J Corporation 
confirming that it employed the Beneficiary in the United States from June 2005 until December 2006 
and applied his ironworking skills to a historical restoration project and on two commercial fabrication 
projects. Other evidence in the record clarifies that the Beneficiary served in an 18-month 
8 
~ceship withc=J where he underwentlpractirl training with the Petitioner's president, D 
L___J who was then a vice president with While the Petitioner demonstrated that this 
company has a dip.ti.rurni,shed reputation, the Petitioner did not provide evidence that the Beneficiary 
or his work witbL__J as an apprentice garnered attention at a level consistent with national or 
international acclaim. This practical training experience was likely valuable to the Beneficiary in his 
artistic and professional development, but the evidence of his activities in the field should be 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. 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary has since operated his own blacksmith shop in Hungary with 
his brothers, but as noted, the Petitioner does not document or mention his continuing activities or 
achievements in the field prior to his return to the United States in 2015, and has therefore has not 
supported a finding that he has the level of sustained national or international acclaim required. For 
exampleJ I states that the Beneficiary "worked with several prestigious metalworking studios 
and design firms in Hungary and internationally" but there is a significant gap in the record with 
respect to explaining or documenting the Petitioner's activities in the field for a lengthy period prior 
to 2015. The evidence does reflect that the Beneficiary received some media attention as a result of 
his work on the town of1 b war memorial project in 2015 or 2016. However, as discussed, 
the media coverage is not sufficiently documented and appears to be local or regional in nature. The 
evidence does not establish that he was selected for the project based on his career of achievements or 
acclaim in the field, or that his completion of the project garnered him national or international 
acclaim. 
Regarding his work with the Petitioner, the record documents the Beneficiary's critical role as one of 
its master blacksmiths. The Petitioner has also substantiated his essential role in executing the 
Petitioner's I I Award-winning project, which has contributed to the company's 
distinguished reputation in the architectural metalworking field. The record reflects, however, that the 
acclaim for that work and any recognition the work has received as a significant architectural 
contribution resides predominantly with the Petitioner and its president, rather than specifically with 
the Beneficiary. For example, only the Petitioner andl I are mentioned in the bookl I 
Further, the one submitted media article that 
discusses the niversity project in detail (from Daily News Hungary) primarily focuses onD 
I I .__ ___ _.president of thel I, recognizes the Beneficiary "as a team member" who 
contributed to the award-winning project, and the record demonstrates that the Petitioner accompanied 
I I to thel !Award ceremony. However, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary's individual work on theOUniversity project is recognized by the overall field as 
having been majorly significant consistent with the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary for this highly restrictive classification. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
The record also contains recommendation letters that praise the Beneficiary's skills and make general 
assertions repeating the statute and regulations. For instance, I lof the I I states that the 
Beneficiary "is a master craftsman of extraordinary skill who has risen to the top of his selected 
metier," and that the I I "do[ es] not object his classification as an extraordinary artist." I I 
I I of the I I states that the Beneficiary "clearly established himself as a successful and 
highly skilled artistic blacksmith" and expresses her opinion that he is "a master craftsman of rare and 
extraordinary ability who has risen to the very top of his field." Although the letters recount the 
9 
Beneficiary's skills in traditional techniques and his notable work with the Petitioner, they do not 
explain or justify their assertions. 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), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y.). Here, the letters do not provide sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record 
include sufficient corroborating evidence, to show that the Beneficiary is viewed by the overall field 
as being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
The record, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for 
the benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals 
already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. USCIS has 
long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 
I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no 
one more accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record insufficient to 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small 
percentage at the top of his field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record indicates that the Beneficiary has previously been granted 0-1 status, a 
classification reserved for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at 
least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Beneficiary, the prior approval does 
not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different 
standard - statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are correctly 
denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 
293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990). Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the 
nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district 
court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an 
individual, we are not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. 
Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility as 
an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with 
each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10