dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20738529 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 31, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a musical director, 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that he has a qualifying one-time achievement (a major, internationally 
recognized award) or that he, in the alternative, satisfies at least three of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria for this classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N 
Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's 
Inc ., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals 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 a 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 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) 
( 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner is a co-founder, musician, and musical director for the 
I I group I I The evidence indicates that I I which formed in 1987, 
regularly performs at restaurants, private and corporate parties, and special events inl I and 
has made appearances onl I television. In a letter submitted with his petition, the Petitioner 
stated his intent to work as a musical director for several! !Florida-based projects focused on 
I lmusic. 
The Petitioner initially claimed that he received two major, internationally recognized awards, 
specifically twol lawards, and therefore established that he has a qualifying one-time 
achievement. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established that these awards are 
major, internationally recognized awards, and he does not pursue this claim on appeal. Because the 
Petitioner does not contest the Director's conclusions regarding this issue, we consider it to be 
abandoned. 1 We will discuss the awards further in the context of lesser awards under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not shown that he 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 have satisfied six of these criteria, summarized below: 
1 See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 T&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1. *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (x), High salary or other significantly high remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to satisfy any of the six 
claimed criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence related to several criteria, 
asserts that the Director failed to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard, and maintains that 
he meets at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) and is otherwise qualified for the benefit 
sought. We have reviewed all the evidence in the record and, for the reasons discussed below, 
conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three 
criteria. 
Documentation of the individual'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). 
To fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he received the prizes or awards, and that 
they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field 
include, 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. 2 
The Petitioner claims to satisfy this criterion based on the following awards: 
• award, Musical Director of the Year (2016) 
• I I award, Musical Producer of the Year (201 7) 
The inscriptions on the Petitioner's award plaques indicate that he received the 2016 award for his 30 
years of experience and success directing the group I I while the 201 7 award recognizes 
his achievement of 5,000 performances with the group. 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included a letter froml ,I the president of the I 
ofl I Foundation, addressed to the Petitioner, which provides background regarding the 
organization and award and indicates that the Petitioner would be receiving the the 2016 Musical Director of 
the Year award at an event held at I inl _ on November 3, 2016. 
I I indicates that the award was established by a journalist in 1955, that it has been issued since 
that time "in the state ofl !throughout the national and international territory such as Colombia, 
Mexico, USA, Panama, Puerto Rico, Europe," and that it recognizes those in the fields ofradio, television, 
2 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (noting 
relevant considerations in determining if the award or prize meets this criterion, among others, are its national or 
international significance in the field). 
3 
cinema, theater, advertising, sport, commercial, business, medical and institutional, among others. The 
letter mentions that the award "operates non-profit, it also has no sponsorship from any government entity 
or private company and therefore its credibility and prestige are endorsed by our criteria and the ethics of 
each person who make up the board."I lalso states that thel I is the only prize 
I lthat has its certificate "endorsed by the International Federation of Awards" which makes it 
"the most credible award at a regional, national and international level." The letter indicates that winners 
are chosen "according to the results of the surveys and studies carried out by our board of directors." 
However, the Petitioner did not include any additional evidence regarding the nomination and selection 
process for the award to support a claim that it is an award for "excellence" in the field of music or explain 
or document the significance of an endorsement from the "International Federation of Awards." 
The Petitioner indicated that he was providing articles from major media publications demonstrating that 
thel I awards are "nationall and internationally distinguished." This evidence included 
information about the which does not appear to be the same as the 
prize. Information about th identifies its founder as The 
record indicates that the founder of the of of Foundation was 
I I Furthermore, the record provides different years for the founding of the two organizations The 
submitted evidence, therefore, appears to relate to two different organizations and two different prizes. 
A rt· 1 ublished by I I newspaper I describes the as "the only 
award that belongs to the I I 
which groups the awards: Billboard, 'Lo Nuestro,' 'Grammy Latinos' and Golden Globe, 
among others." The evidence did not include documentation of any media coverage of the award 
ceremonies at which the Petitioner received his I I awards or any media attention surrounding 
his receipt of these awards. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that the initial evidence did not 
establish that hisl I awards are nationally or internationally recognized in his field, and noted 
that the record did not include information about selection criteria for the award or information regarding 
others competing for the same award. The Director requested additional evidence to establish the criteria 
used to grant the award, the significance of the award, the reputation of the organization granting it, 
evidence related to previous winners and their acclaim in the field, and public announcements regarding 
the awards issued by the granting organization. 
The Petitioner's response included a second letter from lwho named other recipients of 
I I musical director or musical producer of the year awards. The RFE response also included 
media articles about these individuals from online editions of the lnewspapersl I 
and ______ ,accompanied by circulation figures for these publications. The 
Petitioner emphasized that the submitted articles about these individuals mention that they are recipients 
of I awards and therefore demonstrate that the award receives national media attention. 
Finally, the Petitioner provided an article fromc==J..+innouncin that the next award 
ceremony would be held at thel I of the Hotel in in December 
2017. While the record indicates that the Petitioner received a award in 2017, it does not 
reflect that he received it at the December 2017 ceremony in mentioned in the media article. 
The submitted certificate indicates he was awarded as "Musical Producer of the Year" at a June 30, 201 7 
ceremony held at a museum in The Petitioner did not submit an 
4 
announcement of winners from the ceremonies at which he received his awards or otherwise establish 
that those ceremonies received media attention consistent with a nationally recognized entertainment 
industry award. Further, this evidence reflects that the I I of_ I Foundation has 
multiple ceremonies in different cities on an annual basis, which suggests that at least some of its awards 
may be regional rather than national or international in scope. 
In concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion, the Director determined that 
there was insufficient evidence to establish that his I awards are nationally or internationally 
recognized awards in the field of music, noting that the record lacked documentation showing the criteria 
used to nominate and select recipients and therefore did not establish that recipients are awarded based 
on excellence in the field of endeavor. The Director acknowledged evidence that other award recipients 
received media coverage that mentioned the I award, but noted that rankings forl I 
I I and I I were not sufficiently high to establish that these are major media publications 
inl I or that the awards received widespread coverage. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits an additional letter froitj I who addresses the 
foundation's process for selecting winners. He notes that the foundation evaluates "the nominations 
received by examining the performance, cultural and artistic contribution, years of professional career of 
the nominee among other aspects" and states that "after an evaluation by a group of experts in the field 
and based on verifiable selection methods, the decision to award the nominee is made." I I 
clarifies that the "is not a contest between participants across many categories," and states 
that the Petitioner received the award "because of his musical career of many years and the cultural 
contribution of his group I 
The limited evidence of the award's media coverage is insufficient to establish the level of national or 
international recognition associated with the Petitioner' sl I awards. The submitted evidence 
does not demonstrate, for example, that the award winners receive a level of media coverage associated 
with a nationally or internationally recognized award in the entertainment industry and does not 
include any media coverage of the specific ceremonies at which the Petitioner received his awards. 
Further, the evidence does not provide clear or consistent information regarding the number of award 
categories, the various levels of awards given, the criteria used to grant awards ( and whether the award 
is for "excellence" in his field), or even whether all the awards are deemed national in scope, given 
evidence that there are regional award ceremonies held in different I cities in each calendar 
year. For example, in his initial letter,I I stated that that lwinners are selected 
"according to the results of the surveys and studies carried out by our board of directors." He later 
indicated that a "group of experts in the field" evaluates nominees, but did not identify who comprises 
this group, describe the nominating process, or explain what "verifiable selection methods" are used. 
While the Petitioner submitted articles about other artists in his field that mention their receipt of the 
awards, two of the three articles focus on the current projects and overall career of the featured 
individuals rather than on the award. Notably, none of the media articles relating to this criterion 
mention the Petitioner or his receipt of the I award. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
5 
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 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) 
To meet the requirements of this criterion, the Petitioner must satisfy multiple evidentiary 
requirements. First, the published material must be about the Petitioner and the contents must relate 
to the Petitioner's work in the field under which they seek classification as an immigrant. The 
published material must also appear in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 3 
The final requirement is that the Petitioner provide each published item's title, date, and author. The 
Petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner did not meet this criterion. 
The Petitioner submitted two published articles for consideration. One article, titled I I I was published in the print edition of La Voz on I I 2017. This article is an interview with 
the Petitioner and is about him and his work in the field. The second article was published in the print 
edition of Mi Diario on I 2016, and is titled I This article 
announces a casting opportunity for the I dance competition. It includes a photograph of 
the Petitioner, refers to him as a "renowned music director" and mentions his role on the qualifying 
jury for the show. 4 To establish that these publications constitute major media, the Petitioner provided 
"traffic overview" statistics for their respective websites (diariolavoz.net and midiario.com) obtained 
from Similar Web. While this evidence includes information regarding the number of monthly visitors 
each website receives, the Petitioner did not include Similar Web's rankings (or rankings from another 
source) showing how these online publications compare with others in I Nor did the 
Petitioner explain the significance of the "traffic overview" statistics and how this information alone 
establishes that either publication qualifies as "major media." 
Moreover, the articles the Petitioner provided were from the print editions of these publications and 
were not accompanied by evidence that the articles also appeared in the respective online editions. 
The record does not include any circulation data or rankings for La Vaz or Mi Diario and therefore 
does not establish that either print publication constitutes "major media" inl 5 Nor has the 
Petitioner claimed that either publication is a professional or major trade publication. 
3 Evidence may include documentation such as print or online newspaper or magazine articles, popular and academic 
journal articles, books, textbooks, similar publications, or a transcript of professional or major audio or video coverage of 
the person and the person's work. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. 
4 We observe that the bylines on the original articles indicate that they were written by the same author. The Director 
determined that there appeared to be inconsistencies in the record concerning the articles and their English translations, in 
part questioning whether the same author wrote for both publications. The Petitioner provides additional evidence 
regarding the articles' author and his career in support of the appeal. We find no reason to doubt the credibility of the 
submitted articles. 
5 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix (stating that evidence of published material in professional or major 
trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation (on-line or in print) is high 
compared to other circulation statistics and show the intended audience of the publication). 
6 
In addition to the two published articles, the Petitioner indicates that he meets this criterion because 
he was interviewed on several television programs that aired on Network. In 
support of this claim, he submitted screenshots from You Tube and Face book videos of his appearances 
on the programs! (2016 and 2017) (2016), (1999) andl I 
(1999). He provided an article about the history of from the network's 
website in support of his assertion that he was interviewed in a major medium. 
This regulatory criterion requires "published material" in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media and "the title, date, and author of the material." Screenshots of video clips are not published 
material in professional or major trade publications or other major media consistent with the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The Petitioner did not establish that the screenshots from YouTube or 
Facebook videos constitute published material about him relating to his work, nor did he provide 
transcripts of his appearances on any of these programs. 
The Petitioner subsequently supplemented the record with letters from the producers of the programs 
and ,I who confirmed his appearances with I The producer 
of states that the Petitioner was interviewed by one of the show's presenters about the group's 
upcoming performances and about itsl I music. The producer of children's show 
I I stated that a member of the young cast interviewed the Petitioner about the 
beginnings of his musical career in land asked him to demonstrate how the different instruments 
are played. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence of ratings for these programs in 
support of his claim that they constitute "major media" in I However, even if we determined 
that one or both television programs were deemed major media at the time of airing, the Petitioner did 
not meet the evidentiary requirements. As noted, audio and video coverage of an individual's work 
should be accompanied by a transcript in order for USCIS to determine whether such coverage meets 
all requirements for this criterion. The producers' brief summaries of the Petitioner's appearances on 
I and I are not equivalent to transcripts of those appearances. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence demonstrating that he meets 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 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Petitioner indicates that he meets this criterion based on his service as a member of the "qualifying 
jury" for a dance-themed competitive reality show called! I He submitted two letters from 
the show's producers who indicate his involvement in the first season of the show and membership on 
the qualifying jury for a televised event held onl I 2016 at a venue inl I The 
producers note that the Petitioner provided "excellent advice and opinions to the ten new artists and 
groups that qualified for this gala." As noted above, the Petitioner's evidence also included an article 
titled _________ which was published in thel 2016 print edition 
of the publication Mi Diario. The article indicates that casting to selectl participants 
would be held on I 2016 at the I I nightclub, and that the show would soon air "on 
a television channel." The Petitioner is mentioned in the article as a member of the "qualifying jury" 
panel. 
7 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted an online article about published by I I I I on I 2016. 6 The article indicates that the new television show 
would be holding a "second casting" at thel on I 2016, and that the show 
would later be televised onl I Network. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted insufficient evidence of his participation as a 
judge for the show, noting that the submitted articles contained inconsistent dates and that the record 
"lacked independent documentary evidence that I I actually took place." 
On appeal, the Petitioner seeks to clarify the relevant dates, noting that he served as a judge at the 
casting stage for I inl 2016 and for the show itself in I 6. He does 
not address the submitted article indicating that the castin of the show occurred i 2016, rather 
than 2016. Further, while the article from indicated that casting would 
occur in 2016 and the show would air on Network, the later article in Mi Diario only 
indicated thatl lwould be "on a television channel." The letters from the producers do not 
mention where it was ultimately broadcast. Due to these ambiguities, we agree with the Director's 
determination that the record lacks sufficient independent evidence that the competition ultimately 
took place and was televised as planned. 
Therefore, while the record demonstrates that the Petitioner was invited to participate on a jury panel 
and to evaluate the work of others in an allied field, it does not sufficiently corroborate his participation 
as a judge inl I because it lacks independent evidence that the competition was completed 
and broadcast as planned. The Petitioner does not address this deficiency on appeal. There is also a 
lack of corroborated information regarding the nature of the jury's role in evaluating the contestants. 
The show's producers stated that judges provided "tools and excellent advice and opinions" to 
participants but did not mention that the judging panel was responsible for scoring contestants or 
otherwise selecting the winner. 
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner did not establish he meets the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the display of the individual's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the criterion relating to the display of his 
work at artistic exhibitions or showcases at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). This determination was based, 
in part, on a finding that the criterion is intended solely for visual artists, not performing artists. We 
disagree with the Director's interpretation that the plain language of the regulation renders this 
criterion applicable only to visual artists. The regulation requires only that the work displayed be a 
given petitioner's own work product and that the venues at which the individual's work was displayed 
be artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 7 While not all the Petitioner's 
6 The submitted English translation of the article indicates that it was published on 2017; however, the date of 
publication on the original Spanish-language article is I 20 16. 
7 See also USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix (stating that officers should use the common dictionary definitions 
of "exhibition" and "showcase" in evaluating this criterion). 
8 
performances withl I can be considered "artistic exhibitions or showcases," the record 
contains evidence that they have performed at cultural events intended to showcase! I of 
music and which satisfy the plain language of this criterion. Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's 
determination that the criterion was not met. 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Petitioner initially submitted two invoices in support of his claim that he meets this criterion: 
• July 2017 invoice in the amount of 850,000 indicatin that the Petitioner billed 
I I for a I lheld at the 
• June 2017 invoice in the amount of 700,000, indicating that he bille Steak House 
CA for two "presentations." 
The Petitioner provided currency conversions calculated in August 2017 and indicated that he was paid 
over $150,000 (USD) in two months based on these invoices alone. As a basis for comparison, the 
Petitioner provided salary information for "Music Directors and Composers" from two U.S. Department 
of Labor resources indicating a mean annual wage of $60,630 and a high (90th percentile) wage of 
$106,700 for this occupation in 2016. 
In the RFE, the Director advised the Petitioner that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the 
invoices provide evidence of wages paid to and received by him for his work as a music director. The 
Director advised the Petitioner of additional evidence he could provide to document his annual salary and 
to establish that it is high compared to others in the field. In response, the Petitioner re-submitted the 
invoices and provided a receipt indicating that, in July 2018, I paid the Petitioner 
the amount indicated on the July 2017 invoice. He also submitted additional wage data for music 
directors working in the United States from Pa scale.com. In addition, the RFE response included a letter 
from a representative of who confirms that the company has contracted the 
Petitioner and to provide shows with live musicians and dancers at private, 
corporate, social, and cultural events for many years. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion, emphasizing that the submitted 
invoices alone do not provide evidence the Petitioner's actual salary or remuneration and they were not 
accompanied by evidence that the clients honored them. In this regard, we observe that, although the 
invoices identify the Petitioner as the individual billing for performances, the letter froml I I I indicates that it typically contracts for performances by I land therefore it is 
reasonable to believe that the total amount billed for a given show would include payments to other 
members of the group and other expenses related to the performance. Without additional evidence, the 
record does not establish that any payments he received forl l's services solely encompassed 
his own individual fee for services. The Director also emphasized that the record lacked any comparative 
evidence of what constitutes a high salary for a music director or producer providing similar services in 
I I 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked evidence demonstrating that 
I I paid him the amount billed on the July 2017 invoice. The Petitioner also references the 
9 
previously submitted evidence of salaries for musical directors in the United States and asserts that 
the evidence demonstrates that he earns an "exceptionally high salary" in comparison. 
However, the Petitioner does not address the Director's determination that he did not provide a 
sufficient basis for comparison to show that his earnings are high compared to others performing similar 
work in I Persons working in different countries should be evaluated based on the wage 
statistics or comparable evidence in that country, rather than by simply converting the salary to U.S. 
dollars and then viewing whether that salary would be considered high in the United States. 8 
Further, while the Petitioner has documented the payment he received for a single event, that payment 
(received from the client in 2018) post-dated the filing of the petition. The record lacks evidence, such 
as tax or other financial documents, showing his total earnings in any previous year. Further, as noted 
above, the record does not establish that the fee charged for his group's performance at a given event 
solely encompasses remuneration for the Petitioner's own individual services. 
For the reasons discussed, the record is insufficient to demonstrate the amount of the Petitioner's actual 
income or remuneration, and therefore it cannot establish his eligibility under this criterion. Without 
a proper basis for comparison and evidence showing his comprehensive earnings during a sustained 
period predating the filing of the petition, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has commanded 
a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in his field. 
B. Summary and Reserved Issue 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents demonstrating that he meets at least three of the ten criteria. Although he claims eligibility 
under one additional criterion on appeal, relating to leading or critical roles at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we need not reach this additional ground. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill 
the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve this issue. 9 
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 
8 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. 
9 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24. 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
10 
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 that 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. 
11