dismissed EB-1A Case: Physical Rehabilitation And Massage Therapy

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration Services 
Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
~,/J(,,&~fld 
$john F. Grissom 
'Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
, Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. The director also determined that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that he would 
continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States and that his entry into this country would 
provide substantial prospective benefit to the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits firther documentation in support of hs petition. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of 
expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3): 
Initial evidence: A petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by 
evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. Such evidence shall include 
, Page 3 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award), or at 
least three of the following: 
(i) 
 Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for whch 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) 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; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhbitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
This petition, filed on July 17, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a "Physical Rehabilitation and Massage Therapist expert." The record includes letters of 
support indicating that the petitioner worked as a massage expert and recreation specialist for the 
Multinational Force and Observers from 1998 to 2005.' The petitioner's initial documentation 
included a letter from an official of the United States Embassy in Cairo stating that the petitioner 
served as a massage expert "for high diplomats, from 1983 to 1995." The petitioner also submitted 
March 2007 letters from the Shawl Injury Rehabilitation Center and the Gold's Gym in Oakland, 
California expressing interest in employing him. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, 
at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).* 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in thefield of endeavor. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner submitted letters and certificates of appreciation from the 
Multinational Force and Observers complementing him for his services to the organization. On 
appeal, the petitioner submitted additional certificates of appreciation The petitioner has not, 
however, submitted evidence establishing that these letters and certificates of recognition and 
appreciation from his employer are tantamount to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submits a certificate from the Multinational Force and Observers stating that he 
"successfully participated in the 1984 Sinai lOKm Race." This certificate is simply an 
acknowledgment of the petitioner's participation in the race rather than a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. Further, the petitioner has not established 
that competitive running is his field of endeavor or that he has competed regularly since 1984. The 
statute and regulations require the petitioner's national or international acclaim to be sustained and that 
he seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) 
and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5s 1153(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3) and (5). 
-- -- - 
1 
 "The Multinational Force & Observers, is an independent international organization responsible for supervising 
implementation of the security provisions of the Treaty of Peace between Egypt and Israel." See 
htt~:!/www.mfo.ore/1i4ibase.asp, accessed on June 10,2009, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
The petitioner also submits a Certificate of Appreciation from the Egyptian "Ministry of Interior, 
General Department for Police Sporting Union" stating that he "participated in activities and 
championship of the District in wrestling (Roman & Free Style) during the period from 1975 to 1977 
and he has achieved many championship of the District; he has a high physical spirit and a high 
technical skill." The petitioner's successful achievements in the District championships reflects 
regional recognition rather than national or international recognition. Further, the petitioner has not 
established that competitive wrestling is his field of endeavor or that he has competed regularly since 
1970s. As discussed, the statute and regulations require the petitioner's national or international 
acclaim to be sustained and that he seeks to continue work in hs area of expertise in the United States. 
See sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $9 1153(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R. 
$5 204.5(h)(3) and (5). 
The petitioner failed to submit sufficient documentary evidence to establish that he has received any 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award related to his field of physical rehabilitation 
and massage. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets 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 necessaly 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualifL as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.3 
At the time of filing, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence relating to this 
criterion. On appeal, the petitioner states that he has received "frequent media recognition through 
interviews for articles in governmental newspapers and magazines in Egypt." Although the 
petitioner submits copies of several articles, they are unaccompanied by certified English language 
translations. 
 Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language 
submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator 
has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Further, there is no evidence showing 
3 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
that the articles were published in professional or major trade publications or some other form of major 
media. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the'position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted letters and other supporting documentation indicating that he worked as a 
massage expert and recreation specialist for the Multinational Force and Observers from 1998 to 
2005. There is no supporting evidence showing that the Multinational Force and Observers has a 
distinguished reputation in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Further, there is no evidence indicating 
that the petitioner's role was leading or critical for the organization's operations. The documentation 
submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the success or standing of the 
Multinational Force and Observers to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" 
and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
The petitioner's appellate submission includes several "Certificate(s) of graduation" for his 
successful completion of various training programs, but these certificates do not relate to any of the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Further, there is no evidence demonstrating that 
earning such certificates equates to achievements consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top the field. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt 
of a major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be 
satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence 
to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). 
The director also determined that the petitioner had not submitted evidence demonstrating that he would 
continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States and that his entry into the United States 
will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. We concur with the director's findings with 
regard to these issues. Although the petitioner has submitted letters from potential employers, section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires that the petitioner demonstrate extraordinary ability "in the sciences, 
arts, education, business, or athletics." In this instance, the petitioner has not established that his 
occupation as a Physical Rehabilitation and Massage Therapist expert falls within one of the 
preceding five categories. As petitioner's area of claimed extraordinary ability does not fall within any 
of the categories enumerated, he cannot establish that he seeks to continue work in an area of 
, Page 7 
extraordinary ability as required by statute and regulation. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(ii), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5). We, therefore, concur with the director's 
determination that the petitioner failed to establish that he seeks to enter the United States to 
continue in an area of extraordinary ability and find, beyond the decision of the director, that the 
petitioner has also failed to establish that his occupation falls within one of the categories 
enumerated in section 203(b)(l )(A)(i). 
We also concur with the director's remaining determination that the petitioner has not established that 
his work with clients at a rehabilitation center or a gym in Oakland, California will provide substantial 
prospective benefit to the United States. The proposed benefit of the petitioner's work would be so 
attenuated at the national level as to be negligible. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Nor is there evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has extraordinary ability in the sciences, 
arts, education, business, or athletics, that he seeks to enter to the United States to continue work in his 
area of extraordinary ability and that his entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to 
sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
U.S. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.