dismissed EB-1A Case: Polo Horse Training

MATTER OF L-D-D-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 25,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a polo horse trainer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes 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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director determined that the Petitioner did 
not satisfy the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), which necessitates either 
( 1) documentation of a one-time major achievement, or (2) materials that show he meets at least 3 of the 
10 regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director also concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that he may submit comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), 
because he did not explain why the 10 regulatory criteria did not readily apply to his occupation. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In support of his appeal, the Petitioner submits no new evidence 
but argues that the Director erred in concluding that he did not meet the criteria relating to lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards, membership in associations, and published 
material about him. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii). He maintains that he meets the three criteria 
because he has presented "comparable evidence." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4). 
Upon de novo rev~ew, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may establish his eligibility by demonstrating extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. Specifically, section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act states, in pertinent part: 
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 
Matter of L-D-D-
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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained acclaim and 
recognition of his achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this documentation, then he must 
provide sufficient qualifying evidence indicating that he meets at least 3 of the 1 0 criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), or present comparable evidence that establishes his eligibility under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
The submission of the requisite initial evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)-(4), however, does not, in 
and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 
201 0) (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. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 
(AAO 201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifYing initial evidence, we will determine whether the to.tality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the Petitioner, as initial evidence, may document a one-time achievement 
that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, the Petitioner has not shown that he is the 
recipient of a qualifying award at a level similar to that ofthe Nobel Prize. As such, he must provide at 
least 3 of the 10 types of documentation listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) or offer comparable 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-D-D-
On appeal, the Petitioner specifically challenges the Director's findings on the criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii). As the Petitioner does not continue to maintain that he meets, and has not 
indicated that the Director erred as relating to, any other enumerated criteria, we will not address them in 
this decision. 1 For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he satisfies the 
initial evidentiary requirements, or shown his eligibility for the classification. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner acknowledges that he has not received any prizes or awards. However, he maintains that 
"[u]nder the comparable evidence rule, ... it is irrelevant that the awards were not given directly to 
[him]." He reasons that because he trained horses, particularly and , that won awards and 
participated in winning polo tournaments, he has presented comparable evidence relating to this 
criterion. The Petitioner has not met the plain language of this criterion. He has also not offered 
"comparable evidence" showing he meets this criterion? See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
The Petitioner states that a letter from a top ranking professional polo player, shows 
that the Petitioner has trained horses that won prestigious polo matches. The letter and other evidence in 
the record, however, do not constitute comparable evidence of the Petitioner's receipt of lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. Mr. provided that the Petitioner 
"broke and trained one of [his] favorite horses, " He noted that "competed at some of the 
highest-level matches in the world" and that the Petitioner's training contributed to Mr. 
success in these competitions. 3 Mr. indicated that another professional polo player, 
and the polo team similarly benefited from the Petitioner's work as a horse 
trainer. 
While these accomplishments illustrate the Petitioner's ability and skill as a horse trainer, they do not 
demonstrate that his excellence as a horse trainer have been recognized by national or international 
prizes or awards. On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that polo tournament wins are "70 per cent [sic] 
horse, 30 per cent [sic] rider." 4 The evidence that the Petitioner has offered does not demonstrate that 
the horses he trained were primarily responsible for the teams' wins. Many parties and reasons influence 
the result of a match, including the performance of three other players and horses on the team, the 
trainers who worked with those horses, and others, such as veterinarians, who support the team. Even if 
the Petitioner has been responsible for training one or some of the horses of a winning team, he has not 
1 In his decision, the Director detennined that the Petitioner did not meet the display at artistic exhibitions or showcases 
criterion or the high salary or other significantly high remuneration criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), (ix)., The 
record supports his conclusions, and the Petitioner has not challenged these findings on appeal. 
2 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) provides: "If the above standards [8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)] do not readily 
apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary ' s 
eligibility." 
J Other submitted materials showed that in addition to Mr. has had a number of notable and favorite horses , 
including 
4 
In his October 2014 letter , the Petitioner provided that "the horse is at least 80% of the game of polo ." 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-D-D-
shown that the team's win constitutes comparable evidence of a prize or an award that recognizes his 
expertise in horse training. 
The Petitioner indicated that the 
named a horse he trained, as the ' " As supporting evidence, he submitted 
photographs, showing him riding horses, holding a trophy, and standing on podiums. However, none of 
these documents substantiate his statement that won an award or prize. The two-page online 
printout about the event did not mention that the tournament named a ' '' Instead, the 
printout provided that the tournament selected the ' 
" " or " 
" Regardless, the record lacks information on how the event selected the 
," or if the selection was attributable to the Petitioner's 
expertise as a trainer. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that the event or its awards or prizes , which are in the "Pro" and 
"Amateur" categories, are recognized nationally or internationally. The online printout indicated that the 
"is a new addition to the . series of sanctioned events ." The 
Petitioner has not explained the significance of being a sanctioned event or demonstrated that the event 
is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 
The Petitioner also maintains that 
at the 
one of Mr. horses, received the 
He did not offer evidence of the award certificate or a 
trophy. Rather, he presented an incomplete one-page document entitled" ' He has not 
established the source of this document or demonstrated the accuracy of the information contained 
within. Furthermore , the record lacks inf~rmation on the criteria under which the event selected for 
the award or how the Petitioner's training contributed to recognition. 
The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has received nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards that recognize his work as a horse trainer. See 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i). In addition, the 
Petitioner has not presented comparable 
evidence showing he meets this criterion. In other words, he 
has not achieved recognition, on par with receiving lesser national or international prizes or awards, as a 
horse trainer. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in thefieldfor which class(fication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members , as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
,While the Petitioner is a member of the , the Director determined that his membership did not 
satisfy this criterion . On appeal, the Petitioner does not challenge the Director's finding. Instead, he 
maintains that his employment with the polo team constitutes '"comparable evidence' 
of his membership in an association that requires outstanding achievement as recognized by the polo 
community." See 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(4). 
4 
(b)(6)
J 
Matter of L-D-D-
The Petitioner has not shown that being an employee of a private polo team is comparable to being a 
member of an association. When an employer hires an employee, he chooses someone who can perform 
the tasks that the position requires, and he cqmpensates the work performed. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that an employer-employee relationship is akin to the relationship between an association 
and its members. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that obtaining a job with is similar to an athlete being 
chosen for the Olympic team. However, he has not documented that the significance of his employment 
with a private polo team, albeit a successful one, is equivalent to that of an athlete being selected to 
represent a country in one of the most well-known and prestigious international competitions in the 
world. 
Moreover, the record lacks evidence on how selected its horse trainers. The Petitioner 
offered a letter from the manager of the polo team , indicating that he was a capable horse trainer, who 
maintained "one of the strictest and well-balanced training regimens," and who showed skills in 
"diagnosing and treating [horses'] many ailments. " However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
he was offered the position because, at least in part, of his accomplishments that were comparable to 
"outstanding achievements." Similarly, he has n~t ~stablished that the qualifications ofthe individuals 
who chose him to be one of the team's horse trainers were comparable to those who are "recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields." 
The comparable evidence standard under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) is not a lesser standard, under which a 
petitioner qualifies for a criterion with evidence that does not satisfy the plain language of the criterion. 
Rather, under the comparable evidence standard , the Petitioner must present evidence of equally 
persuasive nature as documentation specifically required under the criterion. Here, the Petitioner has 
not 
established that his employment at a private polo club meets the membership in an association criterion, 
or constitutes comparable evidence that satisfies this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in Jm~fessional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the jieldfor which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material. and any necessary translation. 
The Petitioner acknowledges that he does not meet the plain language of the criterion. He maintains that 
under the comparable evidence standard of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) , material that "describ[es] the 
triumphs of[his] teams and ponies is comparable to published material about [him] directly." He has 
not presented any authority in support of this statement. The submitted published materials do not 
mention the Petitioner by name. They also do not discuss horse training in general, or reference his 
work or accomplishments specifically. 
As discussed, the comparable evidence standard is not a lesser standard . The Petitioner cannot rely on 
the comparable evidence standard to qualify for a criterion with evidence that is not of equally 
persuasive nature as documentation needed under the criterion: The published material criterion 
necessitates evidence showing that the field, in its professional or major trade publications, or the public, 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-D-D-
in its major media, has recognized the Petitioner's work. Implicit in the criterion is that the readers of 
the published material must be able to identify the Petitioner's work in the material. The Petitioner has 
not shown that articles on individual polo players and teams that employed him are about him, or that 
readers would associate the published material with his work as a 
horse trainer. As such, the Petitioner 
has not established that he meets the plain language of this criterion, nor has he offered materials that are 
comparable, in their level of persuasion, to documentation required under the regulation. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical rolefor organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record supports this conclusion. 
Specifically, the Petitioner worked for a polo team that has a distinguished reputation 
because of its competitive successes. According to a letter from the team manager, the Petitioner trained 
. the team's horses and ensured that they "were able to withstand [competitive] pressure, a task [the 
Petitioner] completed with greatest skill, as evidenced by [the team's] numerous wins." Accordingly, 
the Petitioner has submitted evidence demonstrating that he meets the plain language of this criterion. 
For the reasons discussed above, we concur with the Director's finding. The documents submitted, 
including a number of reference letters from professional polo players, showed that the Petitioner is a 
capable and skillful horse trainer, who has worked with horses that contributed to polo teams' 
competitive successes. He, however, has not demonstrated by a preponderance ofthe evidence that he 
satisfies at least three evidentiary categories under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), or presented 
comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
B. Previous 0-1 Petitions 
On appeal, the Petitioner appears to imply that USCIS has acknowledged his extraordinary ability 
because a service center approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on his behalf. The 
prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if 
similarly phrased, standard. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o) with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h). Many immigrant 
petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See. e.g., Q Data Consulting. 
Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. USDep't of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 
(D.D.C.1999);FedinBrothersCo. Ltd. v. Sava, 724F. Supp.1103 (E.D.N.Y.1989). 
In addition, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of 
appeals and a district court. Even if a service center had approved a petition on behalf of the Petitioner, 
we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center where the law is clear 
that an agency is not bound to follow an earlier determination where that initial determination was based 
on a misapplication of the law. Glara Fashion, Inc. v. Holder, 11 CIV. 889 PAE, 2012 WL 352309, at 
*7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012); Royal Siam v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139, 148 (1st Cir. 2007); Tapis Int'l v. 
INS, 94 F. Supp. 2d 172, 177 (D. Mass. 2000); Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v.INS, 44 F. Supp. 2d 
800,803 (E.D. La. 1999), aff'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 819 (2001). 
6 
Matter of L-D-D-
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation in support of extraordinary ability must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that the individual has achieved sustained national or interna~ional acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top ofthe field of endeavor'. Had the Petitioner provided evidence 
satisfying at least three evidentiary categories or presented comparable evidence, the next step would be 
a final merits determination. A final merits determination considers all evidence in the context of 
whether a petitioner has demonstrated: (1) 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," and (2) that the individual 
"has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in 
the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 (discussing a 
two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of 
criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). Although we need not provide the 
type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate 
supports a finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise required for the 
classification sought. 
The Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he satisfies the initial evidentiary 
requirements. Accordingly, he has not established his eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L-D-D-, ID# 102480 (AAO Jan. 25, 20 17) 
7