dismissed EB-1A Case: Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23214182 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 26, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a folk and classical singer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in the arts. 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 petition, concluding the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three . The 
matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R . § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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 their 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that they meet 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 their sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has studied music and erformed as a folk and classical singer since 1997, when he first 
entered a preparatory course at Conservatory I I a regional state-run musical 
conservatory located in __ Armenia. He interrupted his musical studies to perform compulsory 
military service from 1998 through 2000. In 2001, he returned to to study vocal theory, 
graduating with the qualification of an "an opera and concert singer-teacher in the field of vocal art." 
The record does not reflect whether he earned an academic de ree there. Startin in 2005 he worked 
for and toured internationally with the Armenian 
as a vocal soloist. He has toured as a singer, not only with but also with other ensembles such 
as the Armenian He entered the United States 
in March 2021 as a B-2 nonimmigrant and indicates that, subject to the approval of this petition, he 
plans to tour and teach vocal theory to "bring renewed attention and respect for folk and classical 
Armenian songs in the United States." 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed 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 Director determined that the Petitioner met only two of the 
evidentiary criteria relating to judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and display of his work at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii), which is supported by the record. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets 
the eight remaining regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), which we will discuss in tum. 1 
1 While we may not discuss every document in the record, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
2 
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). 
The plain language of this criterion requires evidence (1) of membership in an association, (2) that the 
association be in the petitioner's academic field, and (3) that the association requires outstanding 
achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion through his employment withl The Director 
determined that he did not meet this criterion, in part, because the record did not demonstrate that 
I qualifies as an "association which requires outstanding achievements of their members .... " 
He concluded that the letters submitted to establish I I membership requirements were not 
supported by objective contemporaneous evidence, such as its by-laws or other organizational 
documents to illustrate its membership requirements. The Director specifically asked for such 
evidence in a request for evidence (RFE) prior to the denial of the petition. "Failure to submit 
requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the 
[petition]." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14). 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to letters from individuals he considers to be experts in his field who 
assert thatl ldoes have such membership requirements. In particular, he discusses letters from 
I I asserting that he is I I director and insisting that his letters are 
probative evidence sufficient to establish its membership requirements. 
First, the Petitioner has not shown thatl I director. The Petitioner submitted a partially 
translated foreign language brochure, issued to celebrate I !anniversary in 2018. The 
brochure states thatl lhas beenl director since 1984. Many other individuals 
are noted as serving or having served in leadership capacities withinl I over the years, but 
is not mentioned as a member of the leadership team in the document's partial English translation. 
Because the Petitioner did not submit a complete and properly certified English language translation, 
we cannot determine if the partially translated material is accurate and supports the Petitioner's claims 
regarding! I authority to speak onl I behalf on issues like its membership requirements 
and the significance of the Petitioner's role within the organization. 
The Director stated in the RFE and denial that any document in a foreign language must be 
accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3 ). The translator must certify 
that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that they are competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English. Id. Many of the provided foreign language documents lack 
the required full certified English translations and we incorporate our concerns regarding these 
documents, relating to this and other criteria. Without the required translations, they are of little 
probative value. In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
3 
Even ifc=]is qualified to describe! I membership requirements, he presents inconsistent and 
insufficient information in his letters of the methodology it used in 2005 to hire the Petitioner. For 
instance, in his 2021 letterl indicated thatl I requirements for membership are: 
• A diploma from 
• 10 years of work experience, recognized in the field of expertise; 
• Nomination for membership entered by the Director, and; 
• A final determination to be made by the committee of Ministry of Culture of 
Armenia. 
The requirement of a diploma fromc=J-;eems to limit membership soley to those who attended this 
regional state-run music school, which raises doubts regarding whether membership meets the 
plain language standards of this criterion. Also, while I lwork experience requirement implies 
its members must be experienced, it does not support the Petitioner's claim that it limits membership 
only to those who have outstanding achievements in their field. 
Although I !contends that I I requires "l 0 years of work experience," according to the 
Petitioner's own biographical statements and other evidence in the record, he gained membership in 
2005 at the age of 25 - well before he acquired ten years of work experience. In addition, while 
indicates membership is decided by a committee in the Armenian ministry of culture, the Petitioner 
has not offered evidence of his nomination and ultimate approval for membership inl I nor has 
he demonstrated that persons who comprise the Armenian ministry of culture committee qualify as 
"recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). 
alternately asserts in his 2022 letter that "for [ the Petitioner] to pass the rigorous test of becoming 
a member of we organized a competition where [he] proved with his singing ability, talent 
and knowledge of Armenian folk and eastern traditional songs and music, that he is still the best and 
has no equal." did not indicate in his 2021 letter thatl requires competition for those who 
wish to gain membership, nor does he describe in his 2022 letter how the Petitioner's competition was 
conducted, the requirements for participation, and whether others beyond the Petitioner were allowed 
to compete. 
The Petitioner has not explained whyl I I presents inconsistent methods through which vocalists are 
admitted tol I We conclude that letters lend little probative value to the matter here. 
Doubt cast on any aspect of the Petitioner's [evidence] may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
4 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In general, a leading role may be evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which an 
individual is responsible for the success or standing of the organization or establishment. The 
Petitioner says he qualifies for this criterion based on his role as a soloist for I I but the Director 
determined the record did not give sufficient information about his position or its duties to show his 
role was essential to the outcome ofl I activities. The Director also noted the limited English 
translations of I brochure identified many other people who are engaged in its management 
and oversight in positions such as director, chorus masters, conductors and choreographers, and that 
neither the Petitioner nor are mentioned in the documentation as performing in any of these roles. 
The Director also explained how other letters submitted to establish the nature of the Petitioner's 
singing roles at various venues, such as an event to mark the anniversary of a composer, showed 
that he was a valued participant in these performances, but did not illustrate that he performed in a 
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with distinguished reputations. The 
Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his role sets him apart from others who 
perform in these musical ensembles, nor was there sufficient evidence to show his positioning in 
establishments that have distinguished reputations in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not specifically address the concerns outlined by the Director in his 
denial but instead generally asserts that the Director "did not review the contents of the letters in 
detail." Based on our de novo review, we agree with the Director that it is not apparent from the 
evidence how the Petitioner's role forl land the other referenced organizations was leading or 
critical, or that these entities enjoy distinguished reputations. Accordingly, this criterion has not been 
met. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he commanded a high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in his field. See Matter of Price, 
20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional golfer's earnings versus other 
PGA Tour golfers); see also Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) ( considering NHL 
enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) 
(comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
On appeal, the Petitioner references! I letters which allege that the Petitioner "as a best soloist, 
also has a remarkably high salary at our ensemble compared to the other soloists in Armenia. He 
receives high compensation from [the] ensemble's concerts and receives bonus compensation for his 
performances." We incorporate our previous concerns regarding the probative value ofl I letters 
with regard to the conditions of the Petitioner's employment with I Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 
at591-92. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not presented documentary evidence to show what 
his compensation was as a soloist. Nor does the offered evidence compare his salary or remuneration 
5 
to others similarly employed to establish he has earned a high salary or significantly high remuneration 
for his services. The plain language of the regulation requires the Petitioner to demonstrate his salary 
is high when compared to others performing similar work in his field, and he has not done so. This 
criterion has not been met. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) 
The Petitioner stated that he has performed as a soloist in collaboration with other Armenian ensembles 
in many concerts and referenced his letters of support and promotional materials about his 
performances, but the Director concluded that this material did not sufficiently constitute evidence of 
his commercial successes. This criterion requires the Petitioner to establish his commercial success 
through economic measures, such as volume of sales or box office receipts. The evidence includes a 
sold-out flyer for an organization's anniversary event at a Holiday Inn inl I But the 
Petitioner did not provide ticket sales data for this and other events where he performed to show the 
revenue he earned as a vocalist. The Director explained that without knowing the size of a venue, 
simply selling all tickets is not sufficient evidence of commercial successes. The letters also did not 
offer data about box office receipts at the Petitioner's events or revenue earned from the sale of his 
recorded music. For instance, one letter stated that the Petitioner performed at thel lof 
Armenia, but without sales documentation and comparable records for other singers, the evidence is 
insufficient to show his commercial success. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references the previously submitted evidence, such as letters, program 
brochures and event advertisements, and contends that the Director erred in requiring documentary 
evidence of his commercial success, such as sales revenue or box office receipts. He asserts that 
requiring such evidence is in error as "[tt ]he regulation never states on its face that the box office sales 
are the only regulating and deciding factor under this criterion." While we may agree that box office 
sales are not the only determining factor, we disagree with his proposition that general evidence of 
"his performances with different ensembles around the world," is sufficient to demonstrate his 
commercial successes in the performing arts. Here the plain language specifically calls for the 
submission of documentary evidence of monetary compensation or other commercially recognized 
rankings for his performing arts services, such as box office receipts or sales volumes for his musical 
products, to show that the Petitioner is commercially successful. Without more, the evidence provided 
falls short of the documentary requirements for this criterion. Accordingly, this criterion has not been 
met. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges that he "has not been an author of any books or scholarly 
articles," and he does not specifically contest the Director's decision relating to this criterion. 
Therefore, we deem this issue to be waived and will not discuss this criterion further. See, e.g., Matter 
of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
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. 
6 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion and we agree. For 
instance, the Petitioner provided a foreign language songbook entitled "Wedding Rites and Komitas," 
which was written and published in 2019 by another individual, A-S-. He describes the book as the 
product of a "project [to] recover [traditional] wedding rites while adapting them to contemporary 
requirements," and asserts he was invited to sing the songs in the book. The Petitioner has not 
adequately explained how this book of wedding songs constitutes published material about him, nor 
has he shown that the book publisher qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or as major 
media. 
The Petitioner also submitted articles discussing events where the Petitioner performed while touring 
through various locales. Although the Petitioner's performances are mentioned, the articles appear to 
recount the occurrence of his concerts as general public interest stories. The Director concluded that 
this evidence reflected mostly promotional content for ensemble performances and were not articles 
specifically about the Petitioner. He noted, for example, that the Petitioner's singing work was 
mentioned in one sentence among four translated paragraphs in an article reporting on the last night 
of the I I Group's performance and discussed the performances of multiple individuals 
and a dance group program. Likewise, another article described a 'I I' ensemble performance, 
and one sentence mentioned the Petitioner and another soloist who participated in the performance. 
These articles are not published material about the Petitioner. See, e.g., Negro-Plwnpe v. Okin, 2:07-
CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show 
are not about individual performers in that show). 
The Petitioner has also not offered evidence sufficient to show these publications qualify as major 
media based on the limited circulation data provided about them. As these periodicals target their 
content to a segment of the general public located in Kuwait, Turkey, and elsewhere, the evidence also 
does not demonstrate they qualify as professional or major trade publications. 
Finally, the Petitioner offers links to his vocal performances published on Y ouTube. Without more, 
the availability of his recorded performances on Y ouTube does not illustrate that this is published 
material in major media. The internet in general and Y ouTube in particular are arenas available to 
any user with access to a computer and an internet connection regardless of notoriety or recognition 
in the performing arts. To conclude otherwise would render the "major media" requirement in the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) meaningless. International internet accessibility by itself is 
not a realistic indicator of whether content posted on a given website constitutes major media. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion based on a gold medal issued to him by the Armenian 
ministry ofl I in 2011 and two certificates from this government agency on other occasions. A 
third certificate issued with the gold medal states that the medal was awarded to the Petitioner "[f]or 
his significant contribution to the field of Armenian music, on the occasion of the anniversary of 
7 
the independence of the Republic of Armenia, the I soloist was awarded with a gold medal of 
the Ministry ofl lofthe Republic of Armenia." 
A 2022 letter from deputy minister, Republic of Armenia, Ministry of ___ 
indicated that the Petitioner was given the award for his "significant 
contribution to the field of Armenian Song and music," noting that the award was "given to few artists 
and performers for their high skills and great merit in promotion and development of arts." The record 
also includes evidence about other recipients of this same award, including a cultural exchange 
supporter for his contributions "to Armenian Japanese friendship," a television anchor and author for 
her contributions "to the development of Armenian and global opera art on the occasion of the 30th 
anniversary of her career," and a museum curator for "her input and [her museum's] activities in the 
museum field of Armenia which stood out for their exemplary standards of programming and 
operations." 
The Director requested evidence in the RFE to establish specific details pertaining to the criteria for 
granting the awards; if there were others that were considered for the award; if there were any 
limitations on competitors; and if the basis for granting the award was excellence in the performing 
arts. The Petitioner did not sufficiently address this aspect either in his RFE response or on appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that "the words 'significant contribution' has a meaning of 
'excellence' as is indicated in the plain language of the regulation." While we acknowledge the 
submitted letters, the record does not contain sufficient contemporaneous documentary evidence that 
explains the basis for these awards to show that they qualify as an award for excellence in the 
performing arts. Rather, the evidence suggests that the Minister of I of the Republic of Armenia 
periodically gives awards to recognize individuals who work in a wide variety of occupations which 
promote Armenian culture. The Petitioner has not adequately established that the "significant 
contributions" referenced by the Minister of I lin granting the award are synonymous with an 
award for excellence in his field of endeavor. 
Though requested by the Director in the RFE, the record lacks sufficient evidence from the award­
granting institution (in this case the Armenian ministry of that identifies its purpose for these 
awards and the methodology it uses to select recipients for them. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). It is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not done so here. Without more, submitting evidence of the 
Petitioner's receipt of awards is insufficient to meet the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). We incorporate our concerns regarding the lack of probative evidence about these 
awards in our consideration of the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 376. Accordingly, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
The Petitioner contends he has made original contributions in the field of performing arts, with a 
specific emphasis on Armenian folk and classical singing. The submitted evidence includes letters 
from other musicians, cultural representatives, directors, composers, and professors, awards, 
8 
performance playbills, and articles about his performances which we have previously addressed and 
incorporate here from our analysis of other criterion. 
The Director discussed the letters in the denial and emphasized that while the authors described the 
Petitioner's work forl I other ensembles, and his ability to sing folk and classical songs in unique 
ways, they lacked specificity as to how the Petitioner's work has impacted the field or how his 
techniques have been widely used or accepted within the field. For instance, one writer notes thatD 
D the regional music school where the Petitioner studied music years ago - utilizes his musical 
recordings because his "improvisations and additional styles and genres in singing Armenian folk, 
classical and traditional songs [are] critical for [students] to understand the potential of the singer's 
voice and the song's performance for the audience .... " The Director recognized the Petitioner's 
professional accomplishments, but ultimately determined that the testimonial evidence did not 
establish that he meets this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contests the Director's determination and reiterates that the testimonials from 
experts in his field demonstrate that his work is original and that he has made contributions of major 
significance to his field of endeavor. The Petitioner asserts the previously submitted letters show that 
he "has made major significant contributions to the preservation and development of Armenian art 
and music to be able to sing Armenian traditional and classical songs in a unique style only attributed 
to him," and that he has been an "extraordinary singer to many schools of music in Armenia and 
around the world." 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that he has not only made original contributions, 
but that they have been of major significance in the performing arts field. Major significance in the 
field may be shown through evidence that his original methods or processes have been widely 
implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise 
risen to a level of major significance in the field. The documents in the record primarily contain 
attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field without providing specific examples of how his 
contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance. 
For instance, according to the letter froml I (who was educated at and has been 
employed there as a teacher), the Petitioner "has made contributions of major significance to the 
preservation of the Armenian traditional songs and music by giving them new breadth and style to be 
followed by further Armenian great singers." (Emphasis added.) Likewise,! director 
of the Armenian! I indicates that the Petitioner has performed with his 
orchestra many times, and asserts that the singers [including the Petitioner] who participated in a 
concert dedicated to thOanniversary of a composer "were in the top 1 % of all singers in Armenia." 
He contends that the Petitioner "not only preserves the traditions of the school of the Armenian 
traditional and folk music, but also prepares future singers with the utmost responsibilities." 
While the letter writers expound on the Petitioner's stage presence and singing abilities, they do not 
discuss the specific traditional song preservation and vocal teaching efforts of major significance that 
the Petitioner has been engaged in, beyond performing such songs in concerts. Without more, letters 
that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already 
influenced the field significantly are insufficient to satisfy this criterion. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 
1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. Moreover, we need not accept letters which 
9 
offer primarily conclusory statements. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits 
adjudications). For these reasons, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because 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 at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we need not provide 
the type of final merits determination described in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we 
reserve this issue. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25-26 (stating that, like courts, federal agencies 
are not generally required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see 
also L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 516, n.7 (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, determining that it 
does not support a conclusion 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. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 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 submitted 
documentation of his professional achievements but has not demonstrated that these achievements 
have translated into a level of recognition that constitutes sustained national or international acclaim 
or demonstrates 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. Furthermore, the 
record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
10