dismissed EB-1A Case: Mountain Biking And Cycling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7674392 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 29, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a mountain biker and cyclist , 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 denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which he must meet at least three . 
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). 
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 indicates employment at~Bicycle Store in I I Ohio. Because the 
Petitioner has not claimed 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled only one of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). On appeal, the Petitioner 
references eligibility for two additional criteria. 1 Moreover, although the Petitioner claims that he has 
"provided additional evidence in documents attached to this letter," the record does not reflect that he 
presented any documentation accompanying his appeal letter. After reviewing all of the evidence in 
the record, we conclude that the Petitioner does not establish that he satisfies the requirements of at 
least three criteria. 
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). 
The Petitioner argues that he "provided enough evidence" regarding the 2008 .... l __ ---,-~l~N_a_t_io_n_a_,l 
Downhill Championship, the 20lcl I Mountain Bike Series, and the 20151~--~I 
European Games. 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. 2 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. 3 
The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted a hotograph of a medal and trophy claiming that it 
represented his first-place finish at the 200 National Downhill Championship. In addition, 
he submitted a letter from~ _________ _. of the I I Cycling Union, who confirmed 
the Petitioner's racing result and described the racing competition. However, the letter does not 
provide specific, detailed information demonstrating that a first-place finish at the 20081 I 
1 We decline the Petitioner's request for oral argument. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b). 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-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. 
3 Id. 
2 
National Downhill Championship represents a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award 
for excellence in the field consistent with this regulatory criterion. Instead, the letter focuses on the 
history and background of the racing event without showing the national or international significance 
of the prize or award. 
Likewise, the Petitioner submitted a photograph of a second-place medal from the 2016._ ____ __. 
Mountain Bike Series. Further, he presented a document entitled, 'I I History Tirneline," briefly 
highlighting sornel I events from 1990-2011. The document, however, did not mention the 2016 
event, nor did the Petitioner establish that he received a second-place medal. Moreover, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that a second-place medal from the 20161 I Mountain Bike Series 
qualifies as a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
Finally, the Petitioner provided a certificate and medal for his participation at the 20151~--~ 
European Garnes. However, the Petitioner did not offer any supporting evidence showing that his 
participation at the competition is tantamount to a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence in the field. In fact, the record contains a screenshot from rntbcrosscountry.corn 
reflecting that the Petitioner finished in 3 7th place. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such 
a finish constitutes a prize or award "for excellence in the field of endeavor." 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not show that he satisfies this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find that although the Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied the published material 
criterion, he does not meet the awards criterion. Moreover, while he claims eligibility for an additional 
criterion on appeal, relating to judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), we need not reach this additional 
ground. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve this issue. 4 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. Cornrn'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). 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
3 
Although the Petitioner has experience in competing in mountain biking and cycling events, 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. 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. 
4