dismissed EB-1A Case: Mountain Climbing

MATTER OF N-K-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 23, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a trek and expedition guide to mountain climbers, 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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not shown that he met any of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three. The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen, and the 
Director concluded that with the additional evidence submitted, he met only one of the ten criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he meets three criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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. 
Matter of N-K-S-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
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. USCJS, 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. USCJS, 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
IL ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a mountain climber who intends to work as a trek and expedition leader. As the 
record does not establish that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must 
satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director held that the 
evidence did not demonstrate that the Petitioner met the criteria for membership, published material, 
contributions of major significance, or leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), 
(v) and (viii), respectively. 
The Petitioner then filed a motion to reopen and the Director held that the evidence established the 
leading or critical role criterion but not the membership or original contributions of major 
significance criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and (v), respectively. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that he meets these criteria and that he also qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability 
based on comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). For the reasons discussed below, the 
record does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria. 
2 
.
Matter of N-K-S-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification 
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 asserts that he meets this criterion due to his membership in the 
The Director held that the record did not establish that his outstanding 
achievements as a climbing guide were the basis for his membership in the or that recognized 
national or international experts in the field determined whether he qualified for membership. 
The Petitioner states that the only grants membership to those who have reached the summit of 
Mt. Everest at least once. The record contains a webpage from the which states that as the 
name itself speaks, is an association of The Board of Committee members thus 
includes all the veteran Nepali climbers." In her letter, . the president of the states 
that the Petitioner has summited Mt. Everest six times, in addition to other treks, and that he is 
registered as a member of the association. As evidence that is an expert in the field, the 
Petitioner submitted documentation from her website, discussing her achievements in mountain 
climbing, which also states that she has been the president of the since 2015 
On motion, the Director noted that the record did not contain the bylaws or constitution of the with 
the details about the membership process and who is eligible for it. She also concluded that while the 
record shows that is an experienced mountain climber, the evidence does not demonstrate 
that she is responsible for reviewing all applications for membership in the association. She noted that 
the evidence appeared to show that anyone who has climbed Mt. Everest is eligible to become a 
member of which would include mountain guides as well as those who were mountain climbers. 
No new evidence of the admission requirements or process was submitted on appeal. 
Under this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that his membership is in the field for which 
classification is sought, as an expedition guide. The record does not reflect that his membership in the 
is based on his achievements as an expedition guide nor does it establish that national or 
international experts judged his achievements for admission into the association. Therefore, the 
evidence in the record does not establish that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien 's work in the field for which classification 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). 
The Petitioner submitted an article from the publication Golden Transcript about his work in the field, 
but the record does not contain evidence demonstrating that this constitutes published material in a 
professional or major trade publication or in major media. The Golden Transcript publication appears 
to be based in Golden, Colorado, but the record does not demonstrate the extent of its readership. The 
3 
.
Matter of N-K-S-
record also contains a blog article from alanarnette.com entitled, 
which discusses the keynote speaker at the annual 
dinner in 2015, which was followed by a panel discussion that included the Petitioner. Beyond 
identifying the Petitioner as a participant, the article does not directly reference him again and focuses 
on the issues discussed. Thus, the article is not about him or his work in the field. Additionally, the 
record does not establish that the blog publishing the article constitutes a professional or major trade 
publication or other major media. Therefore, the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that 
he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director held that the letters the Petitioner submitted regarding his contributions did not 
establish that he met this criterion. Then on motion, the Director addressed the evidence in the 
record about the Petitioner's ability to set ropes and routes as well as his search and rescue efforts on 
Mt. Everest. The Director cited portions of letters attesting to these skills and appears to hold that 
the evidence in the record did not show that his contributions had a major influence on the field as a 
whole. No new evidence of the Petitioner's original contributions was submitted on appeal. 
The record contains a letter from , an expedition guide who has worked with the 
Petitioner for more than 12 years, stating the following: 
[N]ot everyone can do the dangerous and technical job of rope fixing, but I can 
always count on [the Petitioner]. He has the technical climbing skills, the knowledge 
of the mountain and the strength (both physical and mental) to be trusted with setting 
the ropes and routes in a sound and safe manner. The climbers tasked with setting the 
ropes battle steep inclines to anchor the ropes so that up to 600 climbers may use 
them to navigate the treacherous terrain of Mt. Everest. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's expertise, but these contributions pertain to specific expeditions on 
Mt. Everest, not to the field as a whole. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his rope fixing 
work has had major significance in the field. 
The record also contains many letters from those who have climbed Mt. Everest with the Petitioner 
who explain the heroic efforts he undertook during the 2014 and the 2015 
earthquake on Mt. Everest. While we recognize the personal impact he has had in rescuing others on 
Mt. Everest, the record does not demonstrate that these are original contributions of major 
significance throughout the field to meet this criterion. 
4 
.
Matter of N-K-S-
Evidence that the alien 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). 
For a leading role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner is or was a leader.1 If a critical 
role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. A supporting role may 
be considered "critical" if the petitioner 's performance in the role is or was important in that way. It 
is not the title of the petitioner 's role, but rather his or her performance in the role that determines 
whether the role is or was critical.2 
The Petitioner claims to meet this criterion by having performed a leading or critical role as a 
mountain guide for The Director initially determined that the 
evidence was insufficient to meet the requirements of this criterion because the letter submitted was 
written by the Managing Director of not On motion, the Petitioner 
submitted a letter from , the co-owner and program director for , stating that the 
company employed the Petitioner from 2004 through 2014 as a mountain guide on treks in Nepal 
and Tibet and that he "has played a critical role on many climbs, and has made significant 
contributions to the field by successfully and safely guiding many climbers on their high-altitude 
adventures." The Director held that this constituted a leading or critical role for 
Upon reviewing the evidence in the record, we find that this criterion has not been established. First, 
the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner performed a leading or critical role for as he 
claims. states that the Petitioner "has personally guided clients to the summit of 
on 6 expeditions," that "he is one of our top guides in Nepal[,] and has played a critical role 
on many climbs." The record does not establish that his work on the expeditions was in a 
leadership role or one that is critical to the success of the organization. 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), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Second, the Petitioner has not 
provided sufficient evidence to establish that is an organization with a distinguished reputation. 
While the Petitioner states that National Geographic has ranked as the 
the evidence supporting this assertion is a page from website. The Petitioner has 
not submitted evidence from National Geographic or other objective evidence to support this 
conclusion. Therefore, the evidence in the record does not establish that the Petitioner meets this 
criterion, and we withdraw the Director's conclusion in this regard. 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Farm !-/ 40 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator' s Field Manual (A FM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 10 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www .uscis.gov /sites/default/files /USCIS/Laws /Memoranda/i-140 -evidence-pm-6002-005-1 .pdf. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, supra , at 10. 
5 
.
Matter of N-K-S-
B. Comparable evidence 
The Petitioner indicates that he qualifies for this classification under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) which 
states that comparable evidence may be submitted to establish eligibility if the standards at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to his occupation. 3 This regulation requires that a petitioner 
demonstrate why a criterion is not readily applicable to his occupation and how the submitted 
evidence is comparable to that criterion.4 
The Petitioner states that the awards and judging criteria, respectively 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and 
(v), do not readily apply to this case because mountaineering and mountain guiding is not a sport in 
which the work of others can be objectively judged and there are no prizes given for this type of 
work. The Petitioner has not provided any evidence to support these claims. Furthermore, even if 
those criteria do not readily apply to this case, eight other criteria remain. 
Although the Petitioner contends that the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
does not readily apply in this case, he then undermines his own argument by citing several articles 
on Sherpa mountaineers and their work, including a New York Times article entitled 
Additionally, the Petitioner also cites a film entitled 
which won the Best Film award at the m 
2009. As such, the Petitioner has demonstrated that this criterion does apply in this case. 
Additionally, the Petitioner states that the evidence in the record is comparable to the regulatory 
requirements because it demonstrates that he is part of a small percentage of individuals who have 
successfully climbed Mt. Everest numerous times while guiding others in that endeavor, that he has 
an unusual ability to function in extremely high altitude, and that he has completed advanced 
training at one of the premier climbing schools in the world. On appeal, counsel states that the 
Petitioner's mountain climbing expertise and achievements are "unique, extraordinary, and rare" and 
that his abilities as a mountain climber have been acknowledged nationally. While we recognize the 
unique skills the Petitioner has in the field of mountaineering, the record has not established that the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to his occupation or that the evidence in 
the record is comparable to these criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement, or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), or comparable evidence establishing his eligibility. Thus, we do not 
need to fully address the totality of the materials in a final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d 
at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1 at 12. 
4 Id. 
6 
Matter of N-K-S-
that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition 
required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN-K-S-, ID# 1646720 (AAO Oct. 23, 2018)