dismissed EB-1A Case: Mountaineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4998313 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 9, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a trek and mountaineering 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. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner did satisfy any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. 
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)(l) 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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a Sherpa and mountain climbing guide who has participated in a number of climbs of 
some of the highest mountains in the world including Mount Everest. The Petitioner8· 
employment since 2004 with the companies an 
and with~--------------~ based in 
Washington. 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 determined that the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the initial 
evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he meets four criteria, discussed below. We 
have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and we conclude that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
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 fundamental 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 
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. 
2 
do not readily apply to Sherpas and mountain guides and why he cannot offer evidence that meets at 
least three of the criteria. 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. In addition, 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. 
Further, as discussed below, the Petitioner maintains that he meets four criteria without the submission 
of comparable evidence, including memberships under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 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). Moreover, the Petitioner did not show that Sherpas 
or mountain guides cannot present evidence relating to the other criteria, such as awards under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), 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 
criteria is not evidence that he could not do so. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that 
he qualifies for these criteria through the submission of comparable evidence. 
Next, the Petitioner's counsel lists 11 individuals with corresponding receipt numbers and claims that 
"USCIS has approved extraordinary ability 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 1 
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 
those cases were strikingly similar to the Petitioner's case, including the application of comparable 
evidence. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien '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). 
On appeal for the first time, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion due to his membership in the 
I I and the,__ _____________ _.,. In order 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. 3 
Regardingc=J the Petitioner submitted a letter froml I the president of that association, 
stating that the Petitioner has summited I I nine times and that he is registered ¥Jl-ll\ember of 
the association. On appeal, the Petitioner provides a copy of his membership card for theL_J showing 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6 (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 distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
3 
he is a General Member of the organization, and screenshots from the0 website that state 'c=J as 
the name itself speaks, is an association of~------~ The Board of Committee members thus 
includes all the veteran Nepali climbers." However, the Petitioner does not provide evidence 
establishing the membership requirements for the ~ showing the organization requires outstanding 
achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts, such as the bylaws or 
constitution of thel I 
Regarding thel I, the Petitioner submitted a letter from I [ its chief administrative 
officer, stating that the Petitioner "is [a] Support Climber ... of this association." On appeal, the 
Petitioner includes screenshots from the organization's website, indicating it operates "as a national 
alpine association of Nepal to promote mountain tourism, climbing sports, protect mountain 
environments and preserve and promote cultural heritage of mountain people." The materials outline 
the following membership levels: 
• General Members: Everest or 2 times 8000m summiteer, mountaineers and any individual 
Nepalese citizen interested in mountaineering; 
• Associates Members: Trekking, travel and mountain tourism related agencies; 
• Institutional Members: Different tourism organizations; 
• Book Holder members (Professional Members): Sardar, senior support climbers, support 
climbers, cook and kitchen boys; 
• Life members: 
Nepalese- Rs.25,000/- as approved by Executive Committee. 
Foreigners - US $1,000.00 as approved by Executive Committee 
The Petitioner did not show that the membership requirements for the>:I I require outstanding 
achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. The record reflects that the 
I I focuses on a certain level of experience and the payment of dues, rather than outstanding 
accomplishments and achievements in the field. 4 Here, the Petitioner does not demonstrate that 
possessing the stated summiteering or mountaineering experience is indicative of outstanding 
achievements consistent with this regulatory criterion. Further, the Petitioner has not establish that 
recognized national or international experts judge membership in thd I 
For the reasons discussed above, 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 classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner's submissions contain a number of foreign language documents. While the record 
includes English translations, some of them do not contain a translator's certification, or are not "full" 
and "complete" translations, as required by the regulatory requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). 
Specifically, the translation of an article dated 2017 from the Nepali weekly newspaper Ghatana Ra 
Bichar specifies that it only translated an "extract" of the foreign language document. In addition, an 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7. 
4 
article from the Dutch travel magazine 360° appears to be in Dutch, however the translation of the 
article does not contain a certification of the translator indicating that the translation is complete and 
that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Another article from 
the Dutch magazine Hoogtelign appears to be in Dutch but is not accompanied by an English language 
translation. In light of these deficiencies, the foreign language documents and their translations are 
insufficient to establish the Petitioner's eligibility. 
Even if we were to consider these documents, we would not find that they satisfy this criterion. 
Specifically, the article from 360° is about the author's experience on a "mini-expedition" to the 
I I guided by the Petitioner and the Petitioner's brotherJ I The article 
from the Dutch magazine Hoogtelign is about Alaska's Sherpa exchange program in which the 
Petitioner participated. These articles are not "about" the Petitioner as required under the regulation. 
In addition, the extract of an article from Ghatana Ra Bichar does not indicate the author of the 
material, as the criterion specifically requires. 
The record contains several additional articles. One from The Himalayan Database, about a 2012 
large expedition tol I mentions that the Petitioner was one of 25 Sherpas who successfully 
summited the mountain, but is not "about" the Petitioner. An article from an unidentified source about 
a 2009 expedition tol I that included the Petitioner, and another concerning the Petitioner 
published in Nepal Saptahik, do not include, as required, the author of the material. Finally, an article 
regtjrdinglthe Petitioner from the website www.thepowemews.com discusses his climbing since 2004 
wit and I lhis completion of basic and advanced training at~between 2005 and 2006, 
his summits ofi I between 2005 and 2009, and his rescue work and rescue training between 
2014 and 2015. The Petitioner, however, has not established that this website constitutes a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not shown that he met 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). 
The Petitioner argues that he has submitted "33 expert letters" documenting his "original contributions 
of major significance" in the field of mountaineering. He claims those contributions include "saving 
the lives of other climbers," "improving mountaineering safety," "using his search and rescue skills 
to teach others how to climb safely," and "contributing to the revitalization of the mountaineering 
industry after the devastating earthquakes in 2014 and 2015." 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. 
5 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8 (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 
The letters praise the Petitioner for his talents and experience. 6 For example, 
'--.,....-.,....-...,.....,...-----,----,--' 
mountain guide, indicated that the Petitioner's "exceptional skills and advanced technical kno
1
ledgel 
on the mountain make him one of the most able and talented guides available in the world." 
J I mountain guide, praises the Petitioner's "physical strength and mental fortitude." ~ 
~L _____ ~I, a climbing enthusiast, described the Petitioner as being exceptional based upon "his 
elite level of physical fitness, strength and stamina; his knowledge of alpine conditions and risk 
assessment skills; and his high level of skill and technical training gained from his extensive resume 
of high altitude experiences." 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 contribution 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 significant level. 
The letters also describe specific events and accomplishments from the Petitioner's ex enence. For 
instance, I I a recreational climber, stated that while summiting the 
Petitioner " rabbed my shoulder to save me from a dangerous fall off the steep incline.".__ __ _. 
, a mountaineer and rock climber, states that the Petitioner helped him descend from 
._th-e-su_m_m_1 __ t_o_f-=-:~~~=when he ran out of oxygen. In addition, in his aforementioned letter,1 I 
confirmed that the Petitioner "has summited I 19 times." I I mountain guide, 
provides that the Petitioner "has completed the advanced mountaineering course through I I in 
Nepal and is now an instructor with this organization." The letters, however, do not establish that the 
Petitioner's personal accomplishments and experiences have risen to a level constituting original 
contributions of major significance to the overall field. 7 
Further, 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. 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, in his above­
referenced letter,1 l indicates that "[d]uring two difficult seasons onl I (2014 avalanches 
and 2015 earthquake in Nepal), [the Petitioner] workt tjre)ess)y rescuing western climbers who were 
stranded on the upper reaches ofl I." Similarly,~--~[ states that the Petitioner "participated 
in high altitude rescue missions and contributed to saving the lives of many W estem climbers and 
Sherpa guides in the aftermath of the devastating 2014 avalanche in the j I and the 2015 
earthquake and avalanche at I I Base Camp." 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. 
Similarly, other letters discuss the Petitioner's skills in setting ropes and routes but do not show that 
his contributions had a major influence on the field as a whole. For example, the record contains a 
letter froml I a climber who has worked with the Petitioner since 2004, stating the following: 
6 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-135 
(D.D.C. 2013) (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 
[The Petitioner] helped to spearhead the "rope fixing" to I ts summit in three 
consecutive years. It should be appreciated that only the most capable climbers could 
be part of this difficult, dangerous, and precise work, paving the way for guided groups 
and less-experienced climbers. The fixing teams are often soloing on steep and 
technical terrain ... while carrying heavy loads to extreme altitude. 
Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field 
and its impact on subsequent work add value. 8 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. 9 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. 
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 forD andD 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. 10 If a critical role, the evidence must 
establish that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of 
the organization or establishment's activities. 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. 11 
The record contains letters froml lthe director of O andl l the 
chairman ofc=J The Petitioner also provided two letters from l ~, the co-owner and 
director of0 and submits an additional letter from him on appeal. The record indicates that D 
is associated with the Montana-base~ !Foundation, and is a vocational program 
that offers annual classes to teach basic mountaineering and climbing~· Nepalis and She~ 
According tol I the Petitioner has been a Lead Instructor with for several years. L_J 
I I provides that he and the Petitioner have worked together at since 2004, and that the 
Petitioner achievedD' s "best instructor" title in 2015. RegardingQ I I stated the 
company "has employed [the Petitioner] since 2004 as a Mountain Guide on many of our treks and 
expeditions in Nepal and Tibet." Although the letters confirm the Petitioner's employment, they do 
not indicate that the Petitioner ever held a leadership position within t~e comranies. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that he performed in a leading role wit orD 
As it relates to a critical role, the letters do not show that the Petitioner contributed to the successes or 
standings ofc=] or D While I I indicates that the Petitioner "has greatly affected" 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
9 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, affd in part 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). 
10 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
11 Id. 
7 
Os reputation as a company "with an impeccable safety record," an~ provides that the 
Petitioner has been involved in the development and implementation of~s curriculum, 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 demog~ple, that his mountain guide role resulted in increased 
revenue or participation with or L_J For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that he 
performed in a critical role for r ~ 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this criterion. 
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 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. 
8