dismissed EB-1A Case: Mountaineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-M-V-S-M-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 30, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a mountaineer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 petition was initially approved. Subsequently, the Director of the Nebraska Service Center issued 
the Petitioner a notice of intent to revoke the approval of the petition (NOIR). Upon receipt of the 
Petitioner's response to the NOIR, the Director revoked the approval of the Form 1-140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had shown that he met at least three of the 
ten initial evidentiary criteria but that he did not qualify for this classification in the final merits 
analysis. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits contends that he qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
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 ofS-M-V-S-M-
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. 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). 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155, provides that "[t]he Attorney General [now Secretary, 
Department of Homeland Security], may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient 
cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." The realization by 
the director that the petition was approved in error may be good and sufficient cause for revoking the 
approval. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988). 
11. ANALYSIS 
As the record does not establish that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must demonstrate that he satisfies at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director held that the Petitioner met the following criteria: awards, 
membership, published material, judging, and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), 
(iii), (iv), and (viii) respectively, but that he had not established eligibility in the final merits analysis. 
Here, we agree that the Petitioner has established the leading or critical role criterion, but we disagree 
with the Director regarding the criteria for awards, membership, published material, and judging; we 
find that the record does not establish that the Petitioner meets these requirements. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of l esser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards f or excellence in the fi eld of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion, but we find that the evidence in the record 
is insufficient to establish that he has received such prizes or awards in the field. The record contains 
an August 2016 letter from the president of the 
1 __ . , stating that "the has set its standards for [the] championship awards of 
2 
.
Matter ofS-M-V-S-M-
members" for climbing summits. This letter contains a chart prepared by 
regarding the championship standards for ascending summits of differing heights, noting the type of 
medal as a bronze, silver, or gold medal from the categories of National, Asia, and World depending 
on the height of the summit. refers to these accomplishments as being equivalent to a medal 
in these categories. For example, he states that the Petitioner "has won several national and 
international championships," noting that "[h]is highest achievement is [the] equivalent of [an] 
International Silver Medal due to his climb of .. in 2010." 1 The record 
contains documents from the with the title, "Championship Certificate," which identify the 
peak that the Petitioner has climbed and which also state what its equivalency is as a medal. For 
example, the "Championship Certificate" indicating that the Petitioner climbed the in 
2014 states that this ascent is the "equivalent of Asia's Gold Medal." The use of the term "equivalent" 
demonstrates that this is a certificate of an achievement that is equivalent to an award, but the record 
does not demonstrate that the Petitioner actually received a prize or an award to meet the regulatory 
requirements of this criterion. 2 
In addition, the record does not contain corroborating evidence of these championships, such as bylaws 
from the or press coverage discussing the championships and whether awards are given for 
climbing these mountains. We also note that the record contains certificates from the government of 
Nepal about certain summits the Petitioner has climbed, but these certificates are called into question 
because they do not use the same language in referencing the governmental entity that issued the 
certificate. For example, the record contains a certificate from the 
'certifying that the Petitioner successfully climbed === in 2008. The 
record contains similar certificates indicating that the Petitioner climbed in 2010 
and in 2011, but these documents state that they were issued by the 
for the government of Nepal and omit the term While the 
record does contain objective evidence indicating that the Petitioner did climb these summits, this 
discrepancy calls into question these certificates. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). We also note that the certificate indicating that the Petitioner ascended 
the states that it is a height of , but the certificate from the government of 
Nepal for this climb states that it is ' ~ When viewed together, these inconsistencies 
diminish the persuasiveness of the evidence submitted as to whether the Petitioner has received a prize 
or award that is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. Id 
The record contains other certificates indicating that the Petitioner climbed the 
in 2014, for example, but it is unclear what entity issued this certificate. For the 
reasons stated above, the Petitioner has not established that the certificates in the record constitute a 
prize or award, nor does the record contain other evidence indicating that these are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence m the field. While we acknowledge the Petitioner's 
accomplishment in having climbed and these other peaks, the record does not 
1 The record reflects tha tallest mountain in the world. 
2 While we do not cite to each certificate submitted in support of the petition, we have considered all of them. See Noroozi 
v. Napolitano, 905 F. Supp. 2d 535, 544 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (noting that it is not erroneous that a USCIS decision does not 
cite from each and every letter in support of a petition). 
3 
.
Matter ofS-M-V-S-M-
reflect that he received a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award as a result. Therefore, 
he has not established that he meets the requirements of this criterion. 
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 Director held that the Petitioner met this criterion, but we disagree. The Petitioner states that he 
meets this criterion based on his membership in the team of mountaineering. In 
another letter written by in December 2016, he states that the Petitioner was one of only 
· · ~- · ~ ~ ~ · · ~ out of 240 professional mountaineers who 
applied for the expedition. However, the Petitioner does not indicate what being on the 
team entails and whether it requires outstanding achievements of its members for membership 
on the team. Instead, states that after "several rounds of evaluation and camp participation," 
qualified for the team." 's letter from August 2016 indicates that 
these evaluations are based on the applicants' "physical fitness, endurance, temperance, and 
understanding," which he notes are "crucial characteristics for successful mountaineers." This 
demonstrates that membership on the team is based on an applicant's physical and mental 
abilities rather than being based on outstanding achievements. The record does not contain any 
evidence of the membership bylaws or the official admission requirements for the 
team of mountaineering. The Petitioner has not identified the national observers who evaluated him, 
nor has he submitted evidence to demonstrate that they are nationally or internationally recognized 
experts in the field. 
The Petitioner cites one of our decisions concerning an athlete's membership on a team, 
Matter of K-S-Y-, ID# 14269 (AAO Mar. 9, 2016). First, we note that this decision was not published 
as a precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual 
case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues 
considered, and applicable law and policy. Here, we conclude that the facts in this matter are 
distinguishable from those of that decision. In that case, the record demonstrated that the petitioner 
competed in selection matches that were judged by nationally recognized experts, to determine who 
would be on the national judo team. Additionally, the evidence indicated that Korea had the third 
highest number of Olympic medals in judo of any other country, which meant that qualifying for that 
team required outstanding achievements. Here, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence 
about the team of mountaineering, its requirements for membership, or documentation 
establishing that the individuals were who selected him for this team were nationally or internationally 
recognized experts in the field. 
The Petitioner indicates that the is an active member of the International Climbing and 
Mountaineering Federation (UIAA , and the record contains the UIAA articles of association and its 2017 
annual report, which lists the as a member, but this evidence does not establish that the Petitioner 
is a member of the UIAA or that it requires outstanding achievements of its members for membership. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
4 
.
Matter ofS-M-V-S-M-
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 Director held that the Petitioner had established that he met this criterion. We disagree. In order 
for published material to meet this criterion, it must be about the petitioner and, as stated in the 
regulations, 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. 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that "[s]uch 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation." 
Here, we note that the record contains articles from the Kurdpress International News Agency (KINA) 
about the Petitioner, but these articles do not meet the requirements of this criterion as they do not 
state the name of the author, as required. We also note the in both articles from the KINA, from 2015 
and 2016, they state that the Petitioner has been a member of the mountaineering team for 14 
years, which would mean that he would have joined in 2001 or 2002, but the August 2016 letter from 
indicates that the Petitioner has been a member of this team since 2004. The Petitioner must 
resolve this inconsistency with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. While this discrepancy calls into question this evidence, the 
fact that the authors are not listed means that this evidence does not meet the requirements for this 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The record also contains articles from the Islamic Republic 
News Agency (IRNA) and the HamshahriOnline News Website that do not state the names of the 
authors and therefore do not meet the regulatory requirements. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown 
that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien '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). 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion for having evaluated the performances of those 
seeking to join mountaineering teams. In his August 2016 letter, states 
that since 2012, the Petitioner had attended eight camps across as a national observer of 
mountaineers. indicates that in this role, the Petitioner was tasked with evaluating their 
performances to determine whether they had the capacity to climb the summits as a member of the 
"Himalayan climbs national team." The Petitioner must show that he has actually participated in the 
judging of the work of others. 3 Here, he has not provided evidence corroborating letter, 
such as documentation detailing his responsibilities as a national observer for or identifying 
specific instances of his judging. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that he meets the 
requirements of this criterion. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ -14 8 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Law s/Memoranda/i-140-evidence-pm-6002 -005-1. pdf. 
5 
.
Matter ofS-M-V-S-M-
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. 4 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. 5 
The plain language of the criterion requires the petitioner to show his leading and critical role for 
organizations and establishments, as a whole, not merely events organized by organizations and 
establishments. states in his July 2018 letter that has arranged 14 Himalaya 
expeditions since 2008 and that the Petitioner has been the team leader for three of these expeditions. 
Here, we find that the evidence in the record does not establish that his role as a team leader on three 
out of 14 expeditions constitutes a leading or critical role to the organization as a whole. For example, 
with respect to whether he performed a leading role, the Petitioner has not provided evidencing 
demonstrating how his role as a team leader affected the overall or how his position fits within 
the hierarchy of those employed by the With respect to whether this constitutes a critical role, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated how his role as a team leader is of significant importance to the 
outcome of the s principal activities. For example, the record does not demonstrate the 
Petitioner's duties as a team leader or whether he was the primary leader on these three 
expeditions or how many expeditions the arranges to show the influence he has had in the 
organization as a whole. Thus, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In summary, we conclude that 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). 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 that it does not support a finding 
that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
Accordingly, the approval of the petition was properly revoked. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of S-M-V-S-M- , ID# 2397447 (AAO Apr. 30, 2019) 
4 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, supra, at 10. 
5 Id.