dismissed EB-1A Case: Mountain Climbing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 13, 2024 In Re: 30728339 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a mountain climber, seeks classification 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 the Petitioner had 
not satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. In addition, the 
Director determined that the Petitioner had not established that his entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] 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 [noncitizen] seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [noncitizen'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 recognition 
of their 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 they must provide sufficient 
qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 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). 
( 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a scout and experienced mountain climber. He intends to continue his scouting 
activities in the United States, and also intends to serve as an instructor and promoter of the sport of 
mountain climbing. 
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 alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner only met the plain language 
requirements of two evidentiary criteria relating to published materials at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
and judging the work of others at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that 
he also meets the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) related to lesser awards (i), 
memberships (ii), and original contributions of major significance (v). 
Although we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the published materials criterion, 
we do not concur with the Director's finding relating to the judging criterion, which we discuss below. 
We further conclude, upon de novo review, that the Petitioner has not satisfied the initial evidence 
requirements by meeting at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Evidence of the [noncitizen 's} participation, either individually or on a panel, as a 
judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
As discussed above, the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. This regulatory 
criterion requires a petitioner to show that he has acted as a judge of the work of others in the same or 
2 
an allied field of specialization. For the reasons outlined below, the record does not reflect that the 
Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that he meets this criterion, and 
the Director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
Preliminarily, we note that the Petitioner does not specifically claim that he has judged the work of 
others. In a request for evidence (RFE) that identified evidentiary deficiencies regarding other criteria, 
the Director concluded, without analysis or explanation, that the judging criterion had been met. 
The record contains published materials about the Petitioner's accomplishments, as well as evidence 
of awards he has received and his memberships in various associations. The record also contains 
recommendation and testimonial letters that praise the Petitioner's accomplishments in the field of 
mountain climbing and confirm his voluntary participation in various instructor roles for organizations 
in the field. 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must show that he has not only been invited to judge the 
work of others, but also that he actually participated in the judging of the work of others in the same 
or allied field of specialization. Here, the evidence submitted in support of the petition does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner was invited to judge the work of others in the same or an allied field of 
specialization, and actually completed judging activities, as contemplated by the plain language of this 
criterion. Moreover, the Petitioner does not specifically claim eligibility for this criterion, and the 
Director did not articulate what evidence was relied upon in making a favorable determination under 
this criterion. The record as constituted does not establish that the Petitioner participated as a judge 
of the work of others consistent with this regulatory criterion. Accordingly, we withdraw the decision 
of the Director for this criterion. 
Documentation ofthe [noncitizen 'sJ membership in associations in the fieldfor 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 contends eligibility for this criterion based on his membership with the Boy Scouts of 
America, the Nepal Mountaineering Association (NMA), and the Nepal National Mountain Guide 
Association (NNMGA). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determines if the 
association for which the person claims membership requires that members have outstanding 
achievements in the field as judged by recognized experts in that field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. The petitioner must show that membership 
in the association requires outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts. Id. 
The Petitioner submitted documentation demonstrating he is a Merit Badge Counselor with the Boy 
Scouts of America, as well as a document entitled "Instructions for Merit Badge Counselors" 
indicating that merit badge counselors are expected to be teachers and mentors to scouts. The 
Petitioner also asserts that this membership has "specific requirements, which include being approved 
by a special committee and requires skills and education in climbing." The Petitioner also submitted 
a "Mountain Guide Certificate" issued through the NNMGA and the NMA, as well as information on 
how to become an NNMGA guide. 
3 
The Petitioner, however, did not submit evidence of the membership requirements for these associations. 
We will not presume exclusive membership requirements from the general reputation of a given 
association, as the association's reputation may derive from its size, the number of symposiums it hosts 
or other factors independent of the exclusive nature of its membership. As the record does not contain 
the bylaws or other official documentation of the membership criteria for these associations, we cannot 
evaluate whether the Petitioner's memberships are qualifying. 
The Petitioner also claims eligibility under this criterion based on his honorary membership in the Leo 
Club of Anarmani, the youth organization of the Lions Club of Nepal. The Petitioner submitted 
documentation regarding the membership requirements and membership tiers of the Lions Club; 
however, we note that such documentation expressly states that honorary members, unlike regular 
members, are not actual members of the Lions Club. Moreover, regular membership requires payment 
of an entrance fee and is open to any person desiring to be a member who pays the prescribed fee. 
Therefore, outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts, are not 
requirements for membership with the Lions Club. 
For the first time on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his membership as a climbing instructor with 
I land his life membership with US Nepal Climbers Association, 
Inc. satisfies this criterion. While a letter from I I states that membership requires certain 
achievements, such as technical proficiency in climbing as well as evidence of recent climbs, the letter 
does not provide sufficient information regarding its membership criteria, nor does it demonstrate that 
such requirements are comparable to the regulatory requirement of outstanding achievements. The 
Petitioner also failed to provide evidence that admittance to this organization as a climbing instructor is 
determined by nationally or internationally recognized experts in the field. 
Similarly, a letter from the president and general secretary of US Nepal Climbers Association, Inc. 
indicates that life membership in the organization is awarded to candidates who have ascended Mount 
Everest and have at least seven years of mountain guide experience, among other criteria. While we 
acknowledge that the Petitioner was granted life membership in this association based on his personal 
accomplishments in the field of mountain climbing, he did not provide any evidence of the membership 
requirements of this association, and whether membership is judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields pursuant to the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The record does not contain sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate the membership eligibility 
requirements for the claimed organizations, how members are selected, and that the Petitioner's 
membership in these organizations was based on being judged by recognized national or international 
experts as having outstanding achievements in the field of mountain climbing. Therefore, this criterion 
has not been met. 
Evidence ofthe individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor significance 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. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l ). For example, a petitioner may show that the 
4 
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. 
While the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's documentation in support of eligibility under this 
criterion, including testimonial letters and supplemental evidence consisting of certificates of 
completion and awards/acknowledgements of various personal achievements, the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner had not provided evidence demonstrating that he had made original contributions 
of major significance relevant to mountain climbing. On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that his 
"involvement in scouting communities and other associations inspires the youth in mountaineering 
and can greatly benefit the United States." He points to his accomplishments in the field as represented 
by various awards and recognition he received, as well as various letters of support from others in the 
industry as evidence of the impact of his contributions. He submits new evidence in support of this 
assertion, including additional documentation pertaining to awards received as well as additional 
letters in support of this criterion, such as a letter of appreciation from I I 
The letters submitted in support of this criterion praise the Petitioner for his talents and experience. 1 
For example, a letter from I I marketing director of verifies the 
Petitioner's service as keynote speaker for the organization's 
fundraiser. A letter from the secretariat/rover leader ofl lpraises the Petitioner's commitment to 
safety and technical proficiency in the field, whereas an additional letter from a rover leader ofl I 
similarly expresses gratitude for the Petitioner's exceptional service. Although the letters praise the 
Petitioner for his skills, they do not explain what specific contributions the Petitioner has made, or 
how they are "of major significance in the field." The letters primarily contain attestations of the 
Petitioner's status in the field without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level 
consistent with major significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how 
an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 
1115. The letters also describe specific events and accomplishments from the Petitioner's experience, 
but do not establish that the Petitioner's personal accomplishments and experiences have risen to a 
level of constituting original contributions of major significance to the overall field. See Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because 
she did not corroborate her impact in her field as a whole). 
The testimonial evidence in the record, as well as his awards and published materials about him, 
demonstrate that the Petitioner received recognition for his accomplishments in mountain climbing. 
However, this evidence does not contain specific, detailed information explaining how his 
contributions have been both original and of major significance in the field. While we recognize the 
personal accomplishments he has achieved in ascending Mt. Everest and other peaks, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that his contributions rise to a level of major significance in the overall field. 
Having a diverse skill set is not a contribution of major significance in-and-of itself. Rather, the record 
must be supported by evidence that the Petitioner has already used those unique skills to impact the 
field at a significant level. 
1 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance to the field. 
B. Summary and Reserved Issues 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner meets the three evidentiary criteria discussed above. As 
such, the Petitioner has not met the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Detailed discussion ofthe one remaining criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) cannot change 
the outcome of the appeal. 
Moreover, since the identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's arguments regarding how his entry into the United States 
will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. Therefore, we reserve and will not address 
this remaining issues. 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); 
see also MatterofD-L-S, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 576-77 n.10 (BIA 2022) (declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because 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 at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we need not provide the 
type of final merits determination described in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, determining that it does not support a conclusion 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 
submitted documentation of his achievements but has not demonstrated that these achievements have 
translated into a level of recognition that constitutes sustained national or international acclaim or 
demonstrates 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. Furthermore, the record does not 
otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage of individuals who have risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6