dismissed EB-1A Case: Mountaineering And Rock Climbing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 16493399 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR . 12, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a mountaineering and rock-climbing guide and instructor, seeks classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section203(b)(IXA), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for 
this classification. The Petitioner subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider. The Director granted the motion, in part, but affirmed the denial of the petition on the 
same grounds. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) 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. 
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 
international recognition of his or her 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 
he or she 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 aiiicles). 
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-paii review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits dete1mination); 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 
Ibe Petitioner is a roauntaineerinu and b·ekkinu rxpedition guide and the sole proprietor of□ 
I , in Nepal. The Petitioner maintains that he has 
"extraordinary ability in the field of Athletics - Rock Climbing" and "has made an enormous national 
acclaim in the field of Rock Climbing in Nepal." The Petitioner indicates his intention to work as a 
rock-climbing coach in the United States. 
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 Petitioner claims to meet five of the ten criteria, summarized 
below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes; 
• (ii), Memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published materials in professional, major trade or major media publications; 
• (iv), Judging the work of others in the field; and 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria, relating to awards and 
judging, at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iv). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he satisfies the 
three additional criteria listed above. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we will not 
disturb the Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfied the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5 (h )(3 )(i). However, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that he has not satisfied the 
requirements of any additional criteria and does not meet the initial evidence requirements for this 
classification. 
2 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for 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 maintains that he meets this criterion based on his membership in the U.S. Nepal 
Climbers Association Inc. (USNCA), the~----------------~ and the 
Nepal Mountaineering Instructor' sAssociation (NMIA ), and as the "founding member" and proprietor 
of~---------------------~ To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner 
must show that membership in the association is based on being judged by recognized national or 
international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is 
sought. 1 
With respect to USN CA, the Petitione
1 
providld: a copy of his membership card identifying him as a 
"Life Member" of the association as of 2020; a certificaterecognizingthat "Life Membership" 
was bestowed upon him in "in grateful appreciation for his unwavering support and contribution" to 
the association; and screenshots from the USNCA website listing the Petitioner ajong the I 
association's "Life Members." The Petitioner provided a letter from USNCAI I, 
I I who explains that there are two categories of membership (general and life) and that "[ a ]ny 
individual who have successfully summited at least a [ QQQm ta]) mountain is eligible to apply for the 
life-time membership and the general membership." .__ __ ~_.~efers USCIS to the association's 
website (usnepalclimbers.org) for membership requirements and explains that its board of directors 
will "scrutinize an individual's profile before providing membership." He also discusses some of the 
Petitioner's achievements. The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner's achievements are 
noteworthy but determined that neither I l's letter nor the information provided on the 
association's website provided information indicating that "outstanding achievements" are an essential 
condition for life membership in the USN CA. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again refers to the membership program requirements found at the USN CA 
website, emphasizes the "stringent membership criteria for Life Membership," and provides a 
screenshot of the relevant page from the website. According to this infonnation, Life Membership "is 
awarded to those members who have contributed to the tourism sector throughout their professional 
career as a trekking guide," while General Membership is available to "any individual who has 
successfully summitted at least a 5000m tall mountain." To be eligible for Life Membership, 
applicants "must have guided for a minimum of 7 years, must have certification on a mountaineering 
climbing course, and must have climbed a peak above 6000m at least 4 times." 
The Petitioner has not shown that life membership in the USN CA requires outstanding achievements, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts. The record reflects thatthe USN CA requires 
a certain level of professional experience as a trekking guide, an industry certification, and four 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,EvaluationofEvidenceSubmittedwith Ce1tainFormI-l 40Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/H1MUPolicyManual.html (providing an example of admission to membership in 
the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy 
member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguishedachievementsin 
origin a I research). 
3 
qualifying climbs. Here, the Petitioner does not demonstrate that possessing the stated experience is 
indicative of outstanding achievements consistent with this regulatory criterion. While USNCA's 
board of directors may consider other factors when evaluating membership applications, we can only 
evaluate the association's statedmembership requirements as documented in the record. The Petitioner 
has not provided, for example, the organization's bylaws or constitution or information from the 
organization regarding its application review process or standards. The USN CA may have detennined 
that the Petitioner has outstanding achievements in the field, above and beyond the stated professional 
experience and certification membership requirements, when granting his life membership. However, 
it is the Petitioner's burden to establish USN CA requires outstanding achievements as an essential 
condition of membership for every life member admitted and he has not met that burden. 
The Petitioner also claims eligibility under this criterion based on his "Honorary Lifelong 
Membership" itj [ He initially submitted a ce1iificate fro~ I indicating that "[t]his honor 
recognizes his commitment demonstrated towards the programs, activities and ideas" of the 
association, but he did not provide supporting evidence demonstratingthatl !requires outstanding 
achievement as a condition for membership. The Director advised the Petitioner of this deficiency in 
a request for evidence (RFE) and allowed him the opportunity to submit additional evidence, such as 
the sections of the association's bylaws or constitution discussing the criteria for membership and the 
qualifications required for those who serve on its membership reviewing panel. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a letter froml I lwho states 
that "the constitution ofl I provides three categories of membership - General, Honorary 
and Lifelong membership." He indicates that the categories have different requirements but does not 
specify what those requirements are. I lgoes on to discuss the Petitioner's "Honoraiy 
Membership" and his contributions to rock-climbing and mountaineering in Nepal. He concludes that 
"[t]herefore, as per the regulation of agency and subject to the provision of our constitution, the 
executive committee of the organization recognized [the Petitioner's] national contribution and 
decided to honor him with lifelong µi.e.m.be.fship of this association in 2019." The Director determined 
that the Petitioner's membership inl__J did not satisfy the criterion because the Petitioner did not 
provide evidence related to the membership requirements for each membership category mentioned 
id._ ___ ..... ~'s letter. The Director also observed that thel !website did not contain information 
about the general, honorary, and lifelong membership categories mentioned b~ I 
On motion, the Petitioner submitted another letter froml l who states that 'l I had 
updated its website with the classification of its members and other information." He also provided 
a screenshot from the website! I that lists the Petitioner as a "Lifelong Member (Honoraiy)" 
This evidence states that "the committee has taken this decision based on lifelong membership criteria 
stated in the organization's constitution," noting that "honorary lifelong membership" is those "who 
have shown leadership in the tourism industry of Nepal for at least 15 years" and "contributed 
significantly to sectors including rock climbing, mountaineering, trekking, coaching, hospitality and 
safari." The Director acknowledged this evidence but emphasized that the Petitioner did not provide 
evidence thatl I requires outstanding achievements as an essential condition for membership, or 
evidence that the individuals who review prospective members are recognized as national or 
international experts. Thepire..c.tpr also observed that the Petitioner had not submitted the relevant 
portions of the referenced L_J constitution which would shed light on its requirements for different 
4 
levels of membership, the membership review process, and the credentials of the "executive 
committee" that considers admission of members. 
On appeal, the Petitioner re-submits the above-referenced screenshot from the I I website as 
evidence that he has been recognized as an honorary lifelong member. However, he does not address 
the evidentiary deficiencies mentioned in the Director's decision on motion, such as the lack of 
evidence outlining the requirements for different levels of membership mentioned iJ i's letter 
and the lack of evidence that those who participate in the membership review process are recognized 
national or international experts in the field. Further, based on the limited information provided 
regarding the "honorary lifelong membership" category, we cannot determine that 15 years of 
experience and undefined "contributions" in the field amounts to a requirement that all members at 
this level must demonstrate outstanding achievements. 
For the first time on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he qualifies under this criterion based on his 
membership with the NMIA. He submits a letter from NMIAI I, who describes 
the Petitioner as a "key resource person" for the association and states that it has approached him to 
become one of its advisors. However, he does not state that the Petitioner was granted membership in 
NMIA or that membership in the association requires outstanding achievements of its members as 
judged by recognized national or international expe1is. The record includes a certificate issued to the 
Petitioner by NMIA for completion of a ~Basic Mountain Navigation and Hill Walking Course" in 
2006 and evidence that he completed a "High Mountain Rescue Training" course conducted by NMIA 
in 2011, but does not document his membership in this association. 
As noted, the Petitioner also claims eli ibili under this criterion based on his status as the "founding 
member" and proprietor of~---------------------~ We agree with 
the Director's determination that the Petitioner's ownership of this private business does not qualify 
as or equate to a "membership in an association" that admits members based on their outstanding 
achievements. 
Finally, we note that the Petitioner's appellate brief mentions that he "is a Charter Founder Member 
of two reputed International organizations, Kiwanis International and Rotary Club of Boudha 
(Kathmandu)." The record reflects that the Petitioner's initial evidence included documentation of his 
membership with these organizations. However, despite multiple opportunities to do so, he has not 
submitted evidence that either organization requires outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. We note that the 
international reputation of a given organization is not a relevant consideration when evaluating 
whether his membership satisfies this criterion. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual'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) 
5 
The Petitioner submitted 18 articles from various publications in Nepal, including Gorkhapatra, 
Annapurna Post, Nepal Samacha,patra, Taja Khabar Weekly, Nami Weekly, Rastra Vani magazine, 
Madhyanha,Naya Patrika and Guide Nepal. 2 Not every submitted article meets all required elements 
of the regulation at 8 C,F,R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), as some do not identify the author. An article titled 
I I' published by Ghorkhapatra inO2019, mentions the Petitioner and his 
company, butis not about him. However, upon review, many of the submitted aiiicles are about the 
Petitioner, relate to his work in the mountaineering and rock-climbing field, and include the required 
title, date and author of the material and an English translation. 
Therefore, to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that these articles were published in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. The Petitioner's evidence should 
establish that the circulation (on-line or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics and 
show who the intended audience of the publication is. 3 
The initial evidence included a letter from a representative of Press Council Nepal who certifies the 
"grading" of the publications in which the articles were published. Specifically, the representative 
states thatAnnapurna Post, Gorkhapatra, Naya Patrika, and Nepal Samacharpatra are daily "National 
'A' Grade" publications, Madhyanha and Taja Khabar are "National 'B' Grade" publications and 
Nami is a "Local 'C' Grade." However, the letter did not provide an explanation of this publication 
grading system, nor did the Petitioner submit any additional evidence explaining the system. The 
Petitioner has emphasized that Press Council Nepal "is the regulating agency of media in Nepal," and 
"prescribes and classifies the 'Category of News Papers' based on the prescribed rules." However, 
these "prescribed rules" are not explained or documented. Without additional context and information 
regarding the relative circulation statistics of these publications, we cannot conclude, for example, that 
all 'A' Grade publications would automatically qualify as major media. 
The Petitioner subsequently submitted letters from the publishers of eight newspapers, but this 
additional evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that any of these publications qualifies as major 
media. 4 For example, a letter from the editor-in-chief of Gorkhapatra states that it is the oldest 
national daily newspaper in Nepal and mentions the topics covered by the paper. The editor of the 
Annapurna Post describes the publication as "a national daily newspaper" and confirms that it has 
published articles about the Petitioner. The news chief of Nepal Samcharpatra mentions that the 
newspaper has a circulation of 60,000 copies daily but there is no context for us to evaluate how this 
circulation figure compares to that of other newspapers in Nepal. The editor of Madhyanha National 
Daily states that this publication "ranks within top 25 among the daily newspaper," but is not 
accompanied by independent evidence of newspaper rankings within Nepal, and it is unclear whether 
the referenced rankings were based on circulation or some other measure. The Petitioner has not 
shown that he meets this criterion based on the submitted newspaper articles. 
As noted the Petitioner also submitted an exce t from the 2019 issue of Guide Ne al a 
It is unclear '------------------------------------' 
2 The referenced articles are related to the Petitioner's work in the field ofmountaineeringandrockclimbing. He submitted 
eight additional articles which discuss his involvement in social welfare activities in Nepal. 
3 Sec USCISPolicy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,supra, at 7. 
4 While we discuss only a sampling of these letters here, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
whether the article, which does not identify an author as required by the regulation, is an article about 
the Petitioner authored by the publisher, or whether it is part of the advertisement for the Petitioner's 
company. The Petitioner also did not provide evidence demonstrating the intended audience or 
circulation figures for Guide Nepal. Although it isl I, an association in the 
Petitioner's field, the fact that it is published in the English language suggests that its intended 
audience may be foreign visitors in Nepal, rather than professionals in the field. The Petitioner did 
not establish that Guide Nepal is a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classtfication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, and the record reflects that the 
Director reached this conclusion based solely on the Petitioner's initial evidence. We will withdraw 
the Director's determination that this criterion has been met. 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included: 
• All2019 letter from~----------~ who states: "[The Petitioner] has 
w~s member of jury for rock climbing competition organized byl I on D 
I 1201 0." 
• Al I 2008 letter froml,_ ____ ___,INMIA, who states: "[The Petitioner] has 
been appointed imbing Training Competition organized 
by [NMIA] fro 2008." 
• An I I 2019 letter from 
who states that the Petitioner 
participated as a jury member of a "talk show about potential trek and climbing destination in 
lower Everest region and poetry competition." He indicates that the talk show was part of the 
I I organized by I I 
The Petitioner also provided two photographs that depict him among groups of unidentified people 
with the handwritten captions: "Petitioner performingjury member in the competition" and "Petitioner 
as a jury member in the competition." 
Here, the Petitioner did not provide evidence corroborating the letters from these organizations, such 
as documentation detailing his responsibilities as a jury member for the referenced rock-climbing 
competitions or any other evidence regarding these competitions and how they were judged. Without 
this evidence, we cannot determine that his role as a "member of jury" involvingjudging the work of 
others in his field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientifzc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions o_f major signifzcance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
7 
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. 5 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. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner documented his accomplishments as a mountaineering 
guide and tourism entrepreneur and acknowledged evidence that he has constructed rock-climbing 
routes and promoted rock climbing tourism in Nepal. The Director noted that such achievements are 
not irrelevant, but he also emphasized the Petitioner's intention to work in the field of coaching and 
concluded that the Petitioner had not provided evidence demonstrating that he had made original 
contributions of major significance relevant to training or coaching rock climbers. He observed, for 
example, that the Petitioner did not establish that he had developed "original coaching techniques that 
had been widely adopted throughout the sport of rock climbing or significantly influenced rock 
climbing competitors and instructors." 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the newly submitted letter froml lofNMIA 
demonstrates "his outstanding original contributions and continued engagement as an expe1i coach in 
the field of mountaineering and rock climbing. "I I indicates that the Petitioner has been "a 
key resource person" who helped design NMIA' s courses in mountaineering, climbing, rock-climbing, 
mountain rescue and mountain navigation. He states that the Petitioner's "outstanding original 
contributions" in the area of coaching and training include: (1) design, development and 
implementation of NMIA's Basic and High Mountain Rescue Training Program; (2) design, 
development and installation of"the Night Rock Climbing"; (3) design, development and installation 
of 19 rock climbing venues and routes in Nepal; (4) design and development of the NMIA Instructors 
Selection process; and design and development of the rock-climbing course syllabus and course. 
The Petitioner also submits supplemental evidence, primarily consisting of notices announcing 
NMIA's training courses in the above-referenced areas. However, the record does not contain further 
evidence of his participation in creating these courses and we note that the Petitioner did not previously 
claim eligibility under this criterion based on his development of training courses, techniques or 
materials on behalf of NMIA. The record does not support a determination that the Petitioner has 
developed original training techniques that have widely impacted or influenced his field. 
Prior to submitting this new evidence on appeal, the Petitioner had consistently maintained that his 
major contribution to his field is "initiating the concept of Rock Climbing in Nepal." Specifically, he 
emphasized the importance of rock climbing as an essential skill for those participating in advanced 
mountaineering expeditions and stated that he "opened 19 rock climbing routes in Nepal where a 
climber [can] get trained before going to the mountain." The testimonial evidence in the record, as 
well as his awards and published materials about him, demonstrate that he received some recognition 
for undertaking the opening of these climbing routes in 2018 and 2019. 
5 Sec USC IS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (providing an example that although funded and published 
work maybe "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
8 
For example, a letter frotJ O I of Iceland Trekking and Expedition Pvt. Ltd 
states that the Petitioner is "one of the initiator[ s] to work in rock climbing sector ofN epal" and states 
that "the rock climbing spot initiated by him is now being used fortrainingpurposes like NMA [Nepal 
Mountaineering Association], and [NMIA]." I lstates that the Petitioner "initiated a Rock 
Climbing in Nepal which is an essential component for a mountaineering professional before going to 
climb high mountains." He explains that "[t]raining on rock climbing not only helps climbers to 
clim[b] the mountain successfully, but also helps for the rescue of the climbers in case they are in 
troubles during expedition or trekking. "I I anl I I O J states that the Petitioner has made an "extraordinary contribution in the field of tourism in 
Nepal," noting that "despite the huge scope of the tourism in Nepal, the area of rock climbing was not 
open professionally for sport or as a main profession of tourism." 
Although the letters praise the Petitioner for his efforts to expand the availability of rock-climbing 
courses in Nepal and explain the benefits of rock climbing training, they do not contain specific, 
detailed information explaining how his contributions have been both original and of major 
significance in the field. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of 
major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 6 On the other hand, 
letters that lack specifics do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may 
form the basis for meeting this criterion. 7 
The Petitioner also submitted several news a er articles that mention his role in the construction and 
enhancement of roe - Fi=m=b'-"i=n-=--"r"""o""'u-'-te=s'-1=·nc.L.-___ ---'-"-N"""'a""'t"""io'""n=a=l'""'P""'a=r"',k. A September 2018 article from 
A notes that.__ _______ _. 
L...---------------------~ noting that"[ o ]nly some routes built up by 
foreigners were used for climbing." The aiiicle mentions that '---------------~ 
routes for rock climbing were started for ex ansion in the investment of private sector'' 
and mentions the Petitioner's work 'Another 2018 article 
from Anna urna Post titled mentions that 
'-----' 
'noting that "guides are united to make hub of rock climbing in each district so that it will 
contribute for the development of tourism sector." The article mentions that, in Nepal, rock climbing 
is available in several locations (and not only thel 1 I National Park project in which the 
Petitioner was involved) and highlights that the "private sector has been assisting in developing, 
exploring and expanding rock climbing routes." 
The evidence indicates that the Petitioner has been a key figure among more widespread private sector 
efforts to expand the availability of rock climbing areas in Nepal's tourism industry. While these 
efforts may be consideredrelatively novel in Nepal, it is unclear how the construction ofrock climbing 
routes by traditional means is "original" or how the Petitioner's work has already influenced or 
impacted the field in a way that is of major significance. Further, while the Petitioner has received 
recognition for his recent development and enhancement of rock-climbing routes inl I 
National Park, the record lacks support for claims that he was the sole initiator or originator of rock­
climbing in Nepal. 
6 Sec USCISPolicy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,supra, at 8-9. 
7 Id.at9. 
9 
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 fmal 
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, l 990);see also section 203(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)(l )(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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.