dismissed EB-1A Case: Mountain Climbing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
O@ce ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: W 0 4 2009 
SRC 07 127 52207 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any hrther inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
,,yly dclkk-k 
John F. Grissom 
'Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 4 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. The director determined that the record did not establish that the petitioner achieved the sustained 
national or international acclaim required for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 
 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
This petition, filed on March 19,2007, seeks to classifjr the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
mountain climbing instructor. The record reflects that the petitioner has participated in a number of climbs of 
some of the highest mountains in the world including Mount Everest. Regarding his plans for work in the 
United States, the petitioner initially stated that he intended to be a mountain climbing instructor. In his 
response to the Request for Evidence ("RFE), the petitioner stated that he intended to work as mountain 
climber. That response contains no details about how the petitioner plans to continue mountain climbing; 
instead the response contained information about previous climbs. The April 1, 2008 letter from- 
provides the only information about job offers waiting for the petitioner which states that her 
company's "main service is trekking and mountain guiding in the Himalaya" and that the petitioner "would be a 
great addition to [the company's] climbing leaders and guides." 
The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the 
United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(5). 
Although experience as an athlete is undoubtedly relevant to coaching or instructing the same sport, the two 
endeavors are not identical and an alien who seeks to enter the United States as a coach or instructor under the 
extraordinary ability immigrant classification cannot rely solely on prior acclaim as an athlete. While a 
mountain climber and an instructor certainly share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on a different set of 
basic skills. Thus, climbing mountains and instructing other mountain climbers are not the same area of 
expertise.' 
In the present matter, the evidence is clear that the petitioner intends to work as a mountain climbing instructor. 
Although a nexus exists between engaging in and coaching or instructing a given athletic endeavor, to assume 
that every athlete's area of expertise includes instruction would be too speculative. To resolve this issue, in a 
case where an alien has clearly achieved national or international acclaim as an athlete and has sustained that 
acclaim in the field of coaching or instruction at a national or international level, we can consider the totality 
of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that we 
can conclude that instruction is within the petitioner's area of expertise. Specifically, in such a case we will 
consider the level at which the alien acts as an instructor. An instructor who has established a successful 
history of instructing athletes who compete regularly at the national level has a credible claim; an instructor 
of novices does not. Thus, we will examine whether the petitioner has demonstrated his extraordinary ability 
as an instructor or as an athlete. If the petitioner has demonstrated extraordinary ability as an athlete, we will 
consider the level at which he has successfully instructed. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international 
acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). 
Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3) outlines ten criteria, at least 
three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would 
not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that 
the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
6 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following  riter ria.^ 
- - 
1 
 While not binding precedent, we note that the reasoning contained in Lee v. INS., 237 F.Supp.2d 914, 918 
(N.D.I11.2002), supports this interpretation: 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as working in 
the same profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any profession in that 
field. For example, Lee's extraordinary ability as a baseball player does not imply that he also has 
extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball industry such as a manager, 
umpire or instruct. 
Only those criteria claimed to be applicable by the petitioner will be discussed, because neither the 
petitioner nor counsel claim to meet any of the remaining criteria and the record contains no evidence 
relevant to those criteria. 
fi) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the$eld of endeavor. 
As evidence under this criterion, counsel cites the petitioner's receipt of certificates: a 1996 certificate for 
climbing Mt. Everest with The First South Afkican Everest team, a 1997 certificate for climbing Mt. Everest 
with International Everest team, and a 1992 certificate fi-om The British Everest Expedition. First, we note that 
these are not prizes or awards, but instead are recognitions of accomplishments. Second, the most recent 
certificate is dated 1997, which is almost a decade prior to the filing of this petition, so cannot demonstrate 
sustained acclaim. Lastly, these achievements evidence the petitioner's past success as a mountain climber, but 
the record does not demonstrate that he received any awards or prizes for his activities as an instructor. 
Although nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards won by a instructor's students may be 
considered comparable evidence of the instructor's eligibility under this criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h)(4), the petitioner presented no evidence of awards won by any of his students. 
In response to the RFE, counsel states that the petitioner "has climbed Mt. Everest @ghest mountain in the 
world) six times with different international groups as a guide and 15 times on Mt. Arna Dablam Mountain 
(6,858 meters high and one of the most spectacular mountains in the world)." Without documentary evidence 
to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I. & N. Dec. 533, 534 
n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I. & N. Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I. 
& N. Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). We note, again, that even if the petitioner served as an instructor or guide, 
achievements are distinct from prizes and awards. 
On appeal, counsel states that "ascending Mt. Everest is not an ordinary feat" and that only "2,436 
individuals have managed to climb Mt. Everest by the end of the 2007 climbing season." Counsel concludes 
that "scal[ing] the highest mountain in the world [and being] awarded with . . . certificates . . . make it readily 
apparent that [the petitioner] has received national and international acclaim for his work as a mountain 
climber." First, again, any acclaim due would be to the petitioner as a mountain climber instead of an 
instructor. Second, being one of a select few to accomplish a feat does not automatically convey national or 
international acclaim. The petitioner presented no evidence to support his assertion that his accomplishment 
yielded acclaim. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I. & N. Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I. & N. Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility under this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in profesional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classiJication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulation, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would 
Page 5 
not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, 
nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local co~nmunity papers.3 
The petitioner submitted an article entitled "A Journey of Himalayan Mountain (An Introduction of Nepalese 
Mountaineers for Everest Expedition);" "Dawa Sherpa sets Mt. Qomolangma speed climb record," published on 
June 8, 2006 on the China Tibet Information Center website; a profile on a MountainZone.com dispatch from 
April 12, 2004; an entry in "The Sherpas And Sharkhurnbu;" "He is not anymore, now on I am also not target 
the Mt. Everest," published in the Kantipur New paper; and an entry in the "Sherpas of Everest Series" that 
appeared on the Everestnews.com website. The first article bears no indication of the publication in which it 
appeared, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(iii). The petitioner indicated that it was a book 
but provided no information about that book such as sales numbers to establish that it is considered a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. The petitioner included a letter from The Library 
of Congress about two websites, www.ekantipur.com and www.nepalnews.com, which states that "Kantipura 
Publications . . . publishes . . . the daily newspaper Kantipura." The letter contains no further information about 
the publication to indicate that it is a professional, major trade publication or other major media. The 
information submitted about the Everestnews.com website states that it is "the largest mountaineering 
publication in the world." This information comes from the Everestnews.com website itself and it provides no 
support for its assertions. In today's world, many newspapers, regardless of size and distribution, post at least 
some of their stories on the Internet and make their stories available to large electronic databases. To ignore this 
reality would be to render the "major media" requirement meaningless. We are not persuaded that international 
accessibility by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given publication is "major media" such as with the 
websites referenced above. The petitioner submitted no information about any of the other publications. In all, 
the petitioner submitted no documentation such as the national or international circulation of any of the 
publications and the petitioner fails to otherwise establish that the publications are professional, major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish eligibility under this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien 's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
In the original submission, counsel claims that the petitioner established eligibility under this criterion by virtue 
of his summiting Mt. Tarke Kang in 1990, Mt. AmaDablam in 1991, and Mt. AmaDalrna in 1991. The 
petitioner submitted no evidence to show that summiting these particular peaks amounts to a contribution to the 
field. We also note that these climbs occurred more than 15 years prior to the filing of this petition so cannot 
evidence the sustained acclaim required by statute. In the second submission, counsel claims that the petitioner 
is eligible through his five summits of Mt. Everest. Again, however, the petitioner submitted no evidence to 
show how his summiting of Mt. Everest made a contribution to the field of mountain climbing. 
In response to the RFE, counsel stated that the petitioner shared "techniques of safety and safe crossing and 
landing" and stated as proof of his safe methods that the six times that the petitioner participated in Mt. Everest 
3 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. 
For example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
climbs, no one died. On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner made an original contribution through "his 
personal experience and techniques in assessing safety risks [that have] been highly beneficial to others" and 
that the petitioner discovered the optimal time for climbing the mountain. Counsel cites the excerpt from "A 
Journey of Himalayan Mountain" as proof that this discovery impacted the field; however, the excerpt simply 
states that the petitioner made this discovery but does not state that the discovery amounted to a contribution of 
major significance in the field. The petitioner submitted no information showing that other climbers are using 
his techniques or that his techniques have otherwise impacted the field. We also note that a discovery of the 
optimal time to climb one mountain may not amount to a discovery pertinent to the field of mountain climbing 
as a whole. The petitioner submitted no evidence to show how even a major breakthrough in climbing 
technique on one mountain would impact the field as a whole. 
For all of the above reasons, the petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility under this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
In the initial submission and in response to the RFE, counsel claims that the petitioner meets this criterion 
because "B]e has many pictures, which are taken, during the mountain expedition since 1986." The plain 
language of this criterion reveals that it relates to the visual arts. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the submission of "comparable" evidence only when the ten criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3) do not 
"readily apply" to the petitioner's occupation. The record in this case shows that at least three of those criteria 
apply to the petitioner's occupation. The petitioner's summiting of various peaks, which is documented by this 
photographic evidence, has been addressed under the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (v) 
above. Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has pei$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner claimed eligibility under this criterion by virtue of climbing Mt. Everest 
with six different international groups. However, the record contains no background evidence regarding any of 
these organizations so as to establish that they enjoy a distinguished reputation. In addition, the petitioner 
submitted no evidence demonstrating his role with these organizations as a whole. Instead, the evidence 
submitted shows that the petitioner engaged in one climb with a company whose primary business is leading 
climbs. The petitioner has not demonstrated how such discreet involvement with a company amounts to a 
leading or critical role. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his field. The evidence in this case 
indicates that the petitioner has summited some of the world's highest mountains, however, the record does not 
establish that the petitioner garnered acclaim as a mountain climber nor did he sustain any previous acclaim 
through his subsequent work as a climbing instructor. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with 
extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), and his petition may 
not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. !j 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. This decision is rendered without prejudice to the filing of a new petition with the requisite 
supporting documents under section 203(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1 153(b). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.