dismissed EB-1A Case: Mountaineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-P-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 25, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a trek and mountain expedition leader, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ ll 53(b )(1 )(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 satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. In addition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that he 
will continue to work in his area of extraordinary ability and that his entry will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents additional documentation and a brief: arguing that he satisfies at 
least three of the ten criteria, that he will continue to work in his area of expertise, and that he will 
substantially benefit the United States. 
Upon de nova 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 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 
Matter of A-P-S-
(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 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). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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). 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a Sherpa and mountain guide who has climbed Mt. Everest and performed a role in 
a movie. Because he 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met only one of the initial evidentiary 
criteria, leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The record contains evidence that 
the Petitioner served as a managing director for a leading trekking and mountaineering agency in 
Nepal. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the leading or critical role 
criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets three additional criteria, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
Matter of A-P-S-
A. Comparable Evidence 
The Petitioner argues that he "met his burden to show that the ten regulatory criteria do not readily 
apply to his occupation and that the evidence he submitted is comparable to show his national and 
international recognition for his work in his field." Specifically, the Petitioner clams that he provided 
evidence "from multiple sources to explain the difficulties elite Sherpas encounter in being recognized 
nationally and internationally for their extraordinary and incredibly dangerous work." The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not readily apply to 
his occupation. 1 A petitioner should explain why he has not submitted evidence that would satisfy at 
least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), as well as why the evidence he has included 
is "comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 2 
Although the Petitioner offered documentary evidence relating to the life, history, and overview of 
Sherpas, as well as the risks and dangers, the regulatory requirement for the submission of comparable 
evidence is whether the criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4). Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his evidence establishes that the criteria 
do not readily apply to Sherpas and mountain guides and why he cannot offer evidence that meets at 
least three of the criteria. In addition, the Petitioner's claim that Sherpas face difficulties in receiving 
national or international recognition for their work does not necessarily show that Sherpas cannot 
fulfill at least three criteria. Moreover, the decision that a petitioner received national or international 
recognition is conducted in a final merits determination after at least three criteria are satisfied. See 
Kazarian 596 F.3d at 1115. 
Furthermore, as discussed later, the Petitioner claimed to meet three criteria without the submission of 
comparable evidence, including published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), original 
contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). In fact, the Petitioner asserts to only satisfying the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through comparable evidence, discussed below. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
show that Sherpas or mountain guides cannot present evidence relating to the other criteria, such as 
memberships under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and high 
salary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The fact that the Petitioner did not provide documentation 
that fulfills at least three is not evidence that he could not do so. For these reasons, the Petitioner did 
not establish that he qualifies for an additional criterion, as well as other criteria, through the 
submission of comparable evidence. 
In addition, the Petitioner's counsel lists 12 individuals with corresponding receipt numbers and claims 
that "USCIS has approved extraordinary petitions for the following clients of our firm" and"[ e Jach of 
these individuals relied on the use of comparable evidence to establish their eligibility for an El I 
immigrant visa." However, each petition is reviewed on its own merits. Further, we are not bound by 
decisions of a service center or district director. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 
2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). Moreover, Counsel did not demonstrate that the issues in 
1 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 12 (Dec. 22, 2010). 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 Id. 
3 
Matter of A-P-S-
those cases were strikingly similar to the Petitioner's case, including the application of comparable 
evidence. 
B. Evidentiary 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 provided a letter of appreciation from I f reflecting that he received the 2015 
' award for his "outstanding work in being able to portray Nepal in the 
in~t_e_rn_a_t-io_n_a_l_s_c-en_e_'_' ~for demonstrating "a great valor in the recently film I I produced by 
Hollywood wherein, your co-stars role as an accomplished climber is absolutely awesome." In 
addition, the Petitioner references a letter from I I chairman of I I 
c=J, who indicated that the award is granted "every two years to exceptional individuals who have 
made major contributions to tourism in the country" and "[s]uch individuals should have done highly 
recognized work on a national level for more than 5 (Five) years." On appeal, the Petitioner offers 
previously submitted letters who confirmed his receipt of the award and claimed that "such prestigious 
award which is granted for renowned person on tourism sector though there were many summiteers" 
and "regarded as one of the most prestigious awards in this sector." 
This regulatory criterion requires the prizes or awards to be nationally or internationally recognized 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 3 Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for 
granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field including, 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. 4 
Although the letters refer to the award as "prestigious," they do not show that the field recognizes the 
award as a national or international award for excellence. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not offer supporting evidence, such as widespread media coverage of the award in major 
newspapers or other evidence showing the award's recognition for excellence in the field. 5 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that "the national prominence of the award is self-evident from the 
fact that it was awarded to [him] by Nepal's Ministry of Tourism, a national government position" 
(emphasis in original). Further,! !indicated that "[t]he selection committee is coordinated 
by the secretary of ministry of the Nepal Government and is awarded in [the] presence of the Minister 
of Tourism." Government-based prizes and awards, however, do not automatically demonstrate 
national recognition of them for excellence in the field. Again, the issue for this criterion is whether 
the Petitioner received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field. Here, while the Minister of Tourism in Nepal coordinates and presents the 'I I I f' the Petitioner did not establish his overall field's recognition of the award. 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 6. 
4 Id (indicating that an award limited to competitors from a single institution, for example, may have little national or 
international significance). 
5 We note that even though the Petitioner submitted over 25 articles as eligibility for the published material criterion, none 
of the articles mentioned him receiving the award. 
4 
Matter of A-P-S-
Accordingly the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies 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 class[fication 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 record contains properly certified translations of two articles, including the title, date, and author, 
reflecting published material about the Petitioner in major Nepali publications. As such, the Petitioner 
demonstrated that he fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign[ficance 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. 6 For 
example, a petitioner may show that the 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. Here, we will address the Petitioner's arguments on appeal and determine whether he 
has shown original contributions of major significance in the field consistent with this regulatory 
criterion. 
The Petitioner contends that he "has influenced the field of mountaineering by applying his highly 
technical mountaineering skills in the context of climate change research, thereby improving overall 
the body of scientific knowledge for other climbers." He references a letter from I I 
founder and president of I I who stated that the Petitioner "has made major 
contributions and changes to the field of mountaineering by using his extraordinary skills in a unique 
way to improve and augment the world's knowledge of climate change" and his "influence on 
mountaineering and glacier research via the application of his expert technical skills on Mount Everest 
goes well beyond service to any client or single expedition." However,! I did not provide 
specific, detailed information explaining how the Petitioner has made original contributions and how 
they are considered by the field to be of major significance. Instead,! I made broad, 
general statements without identifying the Petitioner's "extraordinary skills" and how they have 
influenced mountaineering and glacier research. Moreover, having a diverse, extraordinary, or unique 
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 skills and abilities to impact the field 
at a significant level. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner argues that as a technical advisor on the film,! I he developed 
processes that will continue to be used in filmmaking at high altitude for many years to come. 
Specifically,! I indicated that the Petitioner represented all Sherpa mountaineers and was 
a script and climbing advisor to the film's production team and "[t]he processel [the Pritioner] 
developed during the making of this film will forever influence future filmmaking on ' Again, 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (providing an example that although funded and published 
work may be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
5 
Matter of A-P-S-
.__ _____ _,!did not identify the Petitioner's "processes" and describe how they are already 
considered majorly significant in the field. Instead,! I speculates on the prospective and 
possible significance in future filmmaking rather than how the Petitioner's contributions already 
qualify in the field of expertise of mountaineering. 
Similarly, the Petitioner ar=es that "his social justice initiatives" in "building the first water supply 
in his natal village, I I where water was previously carried by children on foot" meets this 
criterion. Although I I indicated that the Petitioner assisted in the "development and 
construction of a gravity-fed water supply system that supplies running water to every home in 
I I" he did not explain how working on a water supply system represents an original 
contribution in the field of mountaineering, nor did he show the major significance of the contribution. 
Moreover, the Petitioner claims that he "has made further original contributions to mountaineering in 
the context of climate change research through his osition as the Sherpa-Scientist Initiative (SSI 
trainee" and references screenshots from and 
Although the screenshot from.__ ______ __, briefly mentions the Petitioner as the SSI 
trainee, it does not discuss what the Petitioner contributed to SSI and how it is viewed by the field as 
being majorly significant. Similarly, the screenshot fromj I credits the Petitioner 
for the photographs but makes no mention of his contributions and how they have influenced the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner maintains that his assistance tol I the I I amputee 
and the I I amputee from any country to summit Mr. Everest, qualifies for this criterion. 
He submits a letter from I I who praised the Petitioner as "an extraordinary mountain guide" 
and "has[] patience when climbing with people who has [a] lack of physical abilities and skills." The 
Petitioner, however, did not demonstrate how his work with I I constitutes an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. While honorable, the Petitioner did not show, for 
example, how his work impacted the overall field rather an individual. 8 
Finally, the Petitioner contends that his "[ s ]earch and rescue is a specialized mountaineering skill that 
is original because only a select, elite group of mountaineers are able to perform search and rescue" 
and refers to numerous recommendation letters. However, almost all of his recommendation letters 
specified on appeal simply mention the Petitioner's engagement in rescue missions without showing 
how they constitute original contributions of major significance in the field. For instance, the letters 
briefly stated that the Petitioner "is active in mountain rescue missions around the Himalaya~ 
I I, "played huge vital roles in mountain rescue missions around the Himalayas"c=J 
§ 
"has been involved in several rescue missions around the Himalayas" I O O I 
'played [a] huge roll [sic] in mountain rescue mission around the [H]imalayas" I I 
nd "is playing vital role to rescue on natural disasters at Himalayan region" I I 
7 According to'-------~ SSI "was launched in the Nepalese Himalaya to understand glacial lake gro~ih and 
potential flooding hazards" to "train Sherpas in local communities about hazard mitigation and how to conduct in-situ 
research in the Nepalese Himalaya." 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also 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 the field as a 
whole). 
6 
Matter of A-P-S-
Although the letters indicated the Petitioner's involvement in rescue missions, they do not contain 
specific, detailed information explaining how his contributions have been of major significance in the 
field.9 Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to 
the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 10 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics 
and use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that 
may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 11 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
III. 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 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. Comm'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 section203(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 )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 12 The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the 
petitioner bears the burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
9 While the Petitioner also submitted a letter from~ ______ _,, who provided details regarding two rescue 
missions, he did not explain how they represent contributions of major significance in the field. 
10 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
11 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, affd in palt 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that 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). 
12 As the Petitioner has not demonstrated his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. we need not 
consider whether he seeks to enter the United States to continue work in his area of extraordinary ability under section 
203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act, and whether his entrance will substantially benefit prospectively the United States under 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
7 
Matter of A-P-S-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-P-S-, ID# 3625747 (AAO June 25, 2019) 
8