dismissed EB-1A Case: Pole And Aerial Sport

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 29, 2024 In Re: 33898673 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is a pole fitness performer in the area of pole and arial sport who seeks classification as 
an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition) after issuing a notice of intent to deny (NOID). The Director concluded the Petitioner did 
not show that the totality of the evidence demonstrated her eligibility in a final merits determination. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate 
eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (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 
To qualify under this immigrant classification, the statute requires the filing party demonstrate: 
• The foreign national enjoys extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• The foreign national's entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the 
future. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 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-step analysis. In the first 
step, a petitioner can demonstrate international recognition of his or her achievements in the field 
through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner 
does not submit this evidence, then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that 
meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as 
awards, published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then move to the second step to 
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, 
1121 (9th Cir. 2010) ( discussing a two-step 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 Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an accomplished pole fitness performer who will continue to perform in her sport as 
well as teaching. 
We begin noting an issue the Petitioner raises on appeal. The Petitioner noted the Director's decision 
characterized her as a pole dancer instead of a pole fitness performer. Although we agree the Director 
utilized that phrase, we observe that they treated her as a performer and an athletic competitor within 
their analysis. 
Now to the procedure that occurred before the Director, and this issue will be determinative of our 
appellate decision. The Petitioner filed the petition discussing how her evidence fit into each of the 
regulatory criteria. The Director issued the NOID indicating she met three of the criteria, to include 
the prizes or awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Also within the NOID and under the final 
merits analysis, the Director discussed how the Petitioner's claims and evidence under the regulatory 
topical areas ( awards, judging, display of her work, and contributions to the field) did not demonstrate 
her sustained national or international acclaim and that she is one of the small percentage at the very 
top of the field of endeavor, and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. 
When the Petitioner responded to the NOTD, she did not present her claims and evidence oriented 
towards the regulatory topical areas the Director laid out in the NOID. Instead, she organized the 
response into three large areas: 
(1) She will continue to work in her field of expertise in the United States; 
(2) She offered other approved administrative cases she felt contained similar fact patterns to 
her case meaning her case should also be approved; and 
(3) She included "additional evidence of sustained national or international acclaim showing 
that [she] is at the top of her field of endeavor . . . . [ and] her achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise, including that [she] is one of that small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
2 
In the Director's denial, they noted the Petitioner, through her representative, submitted evidence 
without addressing which regulatory topical area the evidence applied to. The Director further noted 
that provided they offer a reasoned consideration of the overall filing, they are not required to address 
every claim or every piece of evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner notes that the evidence she submitted in response to the NOID should be 
counted towards the final merits analysis. We agree that a final merits determination should consider 
the petition in its entirety to determine eligibility. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
But for the agency to be able to make such a consideration, it is the Petitioner's responsibility to inform 
USCIS how her claims and evidence satisfy which eligibility requirements. Nolasco-Amaya v. 
Garland, 14 F.4th at 1012-13; Spear Mktg., Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank, 791 F.3d 586,599 (5th Cir. 
2015); S.E.C. v. Thomas, 965 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1992); see also Harolds Stores, Inc. v. Dillard 
Dep 't Stores, Inc., 82 F.3d 1533, 1540 n.3 (10th Cir. 1996) (concluding that where the evidence in the 
record is voluminous, it is imperative that an appellant provide specific references to record); Uli v. 
Mukasey, 533 F.3d 950, 957 (8th Cir. 2008) ( citing to Matter ofD-I-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 448, 451 (BIA 
2008) and noting when a case includes voluminous background materials, it is necessary to specifically 
identify the material one relies on to come to their conclusion). The trnth is to be determined not by 
the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 376 ( citing Matter ofE-M-, 
20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989)). 
A petitioner's burden of proof comprises both the initial burden of production, as well as the ultimate 
burden of persuasion. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136, 1142 n.3 (BIA 1998); also see the definition 
of burden of proof from Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (reflecting the burden of proof 
includes both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion). First, a petitioner must satisfy 
the burden of production. As the term suggests, this burden requires a filing party to produce evidence 
in the form of documents, testimony, etc. that adheres to the governing statutory, regulatory, and policy 
provisions sufficient to have the issue decided on the merits. 
Second, a petitioner must satisfy the burden of persuasion, meaning they must establish the degree to 
which their arguments and evidence should persuade or convince USCIS that the requisite eligibility 
parameters have been met (i.e., the obligation to persuade the trier of fact of the trnth of a proposition). 
Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, Dep 't ofLabor v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267,274 
(1994). The level at which petitioners must persuade in the present context is the preponderance of 
the evidence. Whether a petitioner is able to show that a particular fact or event is more likely than 
not to occur is the determinant of whether they have met the preponderance of the evidence standard 
of proof. 
But in the present case, the Petitioner has not satisfied her burden. When she filed a 26-page NOID 
response and hundreds of pages of evidence, it was her duty to inform USCIS of how that submission 
adhered to the governing statutory, regulatory, and policy provisions. And the failure to meet that 
burden means the Director was correct, as they would have been forced to guess at how she was 
eligible and that would not be proper. Bronner on Behalf ofAm. Stud. Ass 'n v. Duggan, 962 F.3d 596, 
611 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (citing Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190, 200 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 925 F.3d 490,496 (D.C. Cir. 2019)). The filing party has an obligation to spell out its 
3 
arguments squarely and distinctly. Schneider, 412 F.3d at 200 n.1. Before the Director, the Petitioner 
did not meet that obligation. Even though the Petitioner has received an adverse determination on the 
issue of her NOID response, that does not preclude her from filing a new petition and informing USCIS 
of how those same claims and evidence should apply to the extraordinary ability classification's 
requirements. 
We now tum from our discussion on procedure, to the merits of one of the Petitioner's claims. 
Regarding the Petitioner's awards, the Director indicated the evidence satisfied the criterion's 
requirements during the antecedent step, but in the final merits determination used language conveying 
the evidence did not meet the criterion's requirements. We agree with the Director's determination in 
the final merits analysis that the record does not contain evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's 
eligibility under that criterion. This criterion contains several evidentiary elements, all of which must 
be met to satisfy the regulation. According to the plain language of the regulation the evidence must 
establish: (1) the foreign national is the recipient of the prizes or the awards; (2) those accolades are 
nationally or internationally recognized; and (3) each prize or award is one for excellence in the field 
of endeavor. 
Although some of the competitions in which the Petitioner claims she received a prize or an award 
bear the word "National" within the competition's title, the Petitioner has not provided evidence to 
establish that these competitions are nationally or internationally recognized. Even if the Petitioner 
were to establish the competitions are nationally or internationally recognized, this level of 
acknowledgement does not automatically impute such recognition to their prizes or awards. A prize 
or an award does not categorically garner national or international recognition from the competition 
in which it is awarded, nor is it automatically derived from the individual or group that issued the 
award. Rather, national and international recognition results through the awareness of the accolade in 
the eyes of the field nationally or internationally. USCIS policy speaks to this issue stating: 
Examples of qualifying awards may include, but are not limited to: 
• Certain awards from well-known national institutions or well-known professional 
associations. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.2(B)(l). We highlight two important qualifiers within 
that bullet point: (1) certain awards; and (2) well-known. 
Regarding the Policy Manual's phrase "certain awards," the top prize or top award from a 
"well-known" nationally or internationally recognized competition or institution, in some cases, could 
result in adequate recognition to satisfy this criterion's requirements. But the record must contain 
probative evidence demonstrating the level at which the competition or institution is recognized in the 
field, and that evidence should establish the level at which the competition or institution is 
"well-known." This recognition should be evident through specific means; for example but not limited 
to, national- or international-level media coverage. 
Additionally, unsupported conclusory letters from those in the Petitioner's field are not sufficient 
evidence that a particular prize or award-or a competition or institution-is nationally or 
internationally recognized. Sufficiently probative evidence that a prize, award, competition, or 
4 
institution is nationally or internationally recognized is generally material from sources besides the 
issuing entity. Krasniqi v. Dibbins, 558 F. Supp. 3d 168, 183 (D.N.J. 2021). Because the record lacks 
such evidence, we withdraw the Director's favorable determination under the regulatory criteria (at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)) and we agree with their adverse conclusion about this criterion in the final 
merits determination. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because we withdrew the Director's determination regarding the prizes or awards criterion, 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. Because of that and the procedural shortcomings 
we detail above, we do not need to 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 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 that goal. 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 the significance of their 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)(1 )(A). Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and they are one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her 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. 
5