dismissed EB-1A Case: Mountain Climbing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-S-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 2n, 2018 
., 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a mountain climber, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(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 Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, arguing that he meets at least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United Stateswill 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 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
.
Maller ofD-S-
requirements . First, a petitioner can demon strate a one-time ac hievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence , then he or she 
must provid e documentati on 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 awa rds , publish ed mate rial in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). The regulati on at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if it is able to demonstr ate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to a beneficiary's occup ation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the tota lity of the 
mate rial provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sus tained 
national or inte rnational acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Ka zarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the document ation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determin ation); 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.O . Wash . 2011) . This two-st ep analysis is consi stent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its qualit y," as well as the principl e that we 
examine "eac h piece of evidence for rele vance, probative value, and credibility , both indi viduall y 
and within the context of the totality of the evidenc e, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter oJChawath e, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petition er last worked as a mountain climber and guide for m 
Nepal. 1 Because he has not indicat ed or established that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regu_iatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petiti one r met only 
one of the initial evidentiary criteria, published ~at erial under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets three additional criteria, discusse d below ? We 
have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a f inding that 
the Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirem en ts of at least three criteria. 
1 The Petitioner' s docu mentation indicates that he last entered the United States in June 2014 and has not been emplo yed 
here. 
2 The Petiti o ner also stales in his brief th<ll, under the comparable evidence provision , "[t]he evidence o f this filing 
clearly show[ s] that [he] is an interna tiona lly well regarded leade r in the field of mountaineering. '' The comparable 
evidence regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) require s that a pet itioner dem onstrat e why a criterion is no t readily 
applicable to his occu pation, and how the submitted ev idence is co mparable to that criterio n. Here, the Petitioner docs 
not explain which criteria do not apply to a mountain climber, which evidence should be consid ered , and how the 
documcnlalion is "truly compar able." See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluati on of Evidence 
Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; Revision s to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM 
Update ADJJ-14 12 (Dec. 22, 2010) , hllps ://www.uscis.gov /policymanuai /HTM UPolicyMa nual.html. Acco rdingly, the 
Petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of the provisio n at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5( h)(4 ). 
2 
.
Malter of D-S-
Documentation of the alien ·s receipt (~f lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
award s for excellenc e in the fi eld of ende~vor. 8 C. F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record contains a "Letter of Commem oration" from the 
1, a "Certificate of Appreci ation" from the ) and 
the ), a nd a certificate from the . 
In addition, the Petitioner provid ed letters from the associations explaining why he received 
their awa rds. For instance, _ _ , president oL , stated that '' dedicated a 
Letter of Commemoration to [the Pet itioner] in tribut e to his successful climb ing of Mt. Everest, the 
tallest peak in the world/' Furth er, , interim president of , indicated that 
"chose [the Petitioner] as the recipient of [the Hero 2014 Award ] in recognition of his 
ex traordinary mountaineerin g abi lities and achievements." In order to meet this c riterion, a 
petitioner must demonstrat e that his prizes or awards are nationall y or internationally recog nized for 
exce llence in the field.
4 
Here, the letters do not show that his awa rds a re nationally or 
internation ally recognized for excellence in the field , nor does the recor d includ e other evidence 
demonstrating such recognition. Accordingly , the Petitioner did not establi sh that he satisfi es this 
criterio n. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publi cations or other major 
media. relating to the alien's work in th e field for which class(/icati on 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 Director determ ined that the Petition er met this criterion . The record contains an article 
reflecting published material about him relating to his field. As the Petiti oner es tablished that he 
fulfill s this criterion, we concur with the Directo(s finding. 
Evidence of the alien ·s original scien tific. scho larly , artistic , athletic , or business-re lated 
contributi ons of major significanc e in rlze field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) . 
The Petitioner argues that he "s ubmitted 13 expe rt letters detailing his major con tribution s to the 
field of mountaineering" and "[h]is orig inal significant contribution s cons ist of his unique ability to 
lead successfu l summit attempts of the world's highest peaks a record numb er of times ." In order to 
satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must esta bli sh that not only has he 
made original contribution s but that they have been of m ajor significance in the field . For example, 
a petitioner may show that the contributions hc.ive been widely impl eme nted throug hout the field, 
have remark abl y impac ted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
signifi cance in the field. 
J Although we discuss a sampli ng of letters, we have reviewe d and considered each one. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1 , supra, at6. 
3 
.
Matter of D-S-
The letters praise the Petitioner for his talents and experience. For example, 
mountain guide, described the Petitioner as a "professional mountain guide with [a] lot of 
experience" and "a superior person with many different skills." Moreover, , mountain 
guide, indicated that the Petitioner's "ability to lead, communicate and work with people who are 
undertaking this difficult task made him one of the skilled and experienced climbers in the industry." 
In addition , , mountain guide, stated that the Petitioner "has the rare leadership, 
communication and technical skills to lead climbers in extreme conditions where severe injury and 
death are possible." 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." 
Having a diverse skill set is not a c ontribution 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 signific ant level. 
The letters also describe specific events and accomplishments from the Petitioner's experience. For 
instance, _ . mountain hiker and climber, stated that the Petitioner "heroically saved 
the life of a fellow Sherpa mountaineer, , ~, by catching him on the hand while he slipped 
off from the safety of a fixed rope on a[n] icy. slope on Mt. Everest at 26300 ft." Further, 
a film director, recounted the Petitioner's assistance in filming the documentary, 
and indicated that he is "very friendly, amiable, hard working and 
[a] good storyteller." In addition, , mountain guide, confirmed that the 
Petitioner ~' ha s successfully scaled the peaks of numerous mountains including Mt. Everest which he 
summited 14 times." The letters, however, do not establish that the Petitioner's personal 
accomplishments and experience s have risen to a level of constituting original contributions of major 
significance to the overall field.5 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of contributi ons 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. In 2010, 
the Kazar ian court reiterated that the USCIS' conclusion that the "letters from physics professors 
attesting to [the petitioner ' s] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the 
relevant 
regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory statements. 1756. inc. v. The US. Alf'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
According! y, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1 , s11pra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 
. (upholding a finding that a ballr oom dancer had not met this criterion becau se she did not corroborate her impact in the 
field as a who le). · 
4 
.
Matter of D-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). 
The Petitioner contends that he performed in a leading or critical role for and . 
. For a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a 
leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, 
leading. 6 If a critical role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner has contributed in a way that 
is of significant importance to the outcome ofthe organization or establi shment's activitie s. It is not 
the title of a petitioner's role , but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role 
is or was critical. 7 
The record contains letters from , managing director of and 
president of According to . . the Petitioner has worked for "since 2002 with 
numerous expeditions," and · " has benefited greatly through his work and received very positive 
comments from our clients. " In addition, stated that the Petitioner has work ed for 
for nine years "and his skills are incredibly useful to our company. " Although the letters contirm the 
Petitioner 's employment, they do not indicate that the Petitioner ever held a leader s hip position 
within the companies. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that· he performed in a 
leading role with 
As it relates to a critical role , the letters do not show that the Petitioner contributed to the successes 
or standings of or . While .. indicates that · has received positive comments 
from their clients about the Petitioner , the letters do not establish that his role as a mountain guide 
rose to a level consistent with a critical role. The Petitioner did not demonstrate, for example, that 
his mountain guide role resulted in increased revenue or participation with or . For these 
reasons, the Petitioner did not show that he performed in a critiCal role for or 
In addition , this criterion requires that the organizations or establishments must be recognized as 
having a distinguished reputation , which is marked by eminence , distinction, or excell e nce.8 While 
indicated that is "a government-registered , -based adventure tour 
operator" and Mr. Burleson claimed that "has lead expeditions around the world and . .. is the 
finest mountaineering school," the letters do not contain specific, detailed information evidencing 
their reputations in the field . Moreover , the Petitioner did not provide supporting documentation to 
demonstrate that they enjoy distinguished reputations. 
Finally , the Petitioner argues that he " played a leading role in a major documentary produced by 
· · .. · ·· The Petitioner, however, did not establish how his participation in a 
documentary shows his leading role for an organization or establishment. The previously discussed 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra , at 10. 
7 !d. 
8 /d at 10-11. 
5 
.
Matter of D-S-
letter from , as well as the letter from (department head of documentary series 
at ), does not indicate the Petitioner's role for . Moreover, the 
Petitioner claims that "[i]n regards to , it is apparent that it is 'distinguished,' as it 
is the major television channel of Switzerland." He did not, though, support his assertion with 
documentary evidence. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this 
criterion. 
' 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
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. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 11'19-20. 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. For 
the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of D-S-, ID# 1480786 (AAO June 26, 2018) 
6