dismissed EB-1A Case: Production Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 02, 2024 In Re: 31222317 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a production designer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
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 did not satisfy 
at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. 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 ofChawath e, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b)(l)(A) 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 
I 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or qualifying documentation that meets 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 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. 20 I 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The record indicates that Petitioner received a bachelor's degree from the 
Iin 2014. She indicates her most recent employment as a "production assistant/student" at 
from September 2021 to May 2023, and previous self-employment in as 
a freelance production designer. 1 At the time of filing the petition in July 2023, the Petitioner was 
pursuinga master's degree in design for stage and film at 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). In denying the petition, the Director determined the Petitioner fulfilled only one (display at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)) of the six claimed categories of evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains her qualification for the remaining five claimed criteria. In 
addition, the Petitioner submits new evidence. Because the Petitioner was put on notice and given a 
reasonable opportunity to provide this evidence, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(ll) (requiring all requested evidence be submitted together at one time); 
Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (declining to consider new evidence submitted 
on appeal because "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable 
opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial"). Thus, we will only address the evidence 
and claims brought before the Director and contested on appeal. For the reasons discussed below, the 
Petitioner did not establish she meets at least three categories of evidence. 
A. Evidentiary 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). 
1 See the Petitioner's F01m I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. 
2 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that her receipt of prizes or awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 2 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. 3 
The Petitioner maintains that she meets this criterion based on her receipt of a II I 2020 Regional Emmy Award, or for 
I ( awarded to the film and executive producers _
I I and ______ for her role as production designer. The Petitioner previously 
submitted screenshots from the I I website I I, which provide 
background information regarding the I I awards and a list of the 2020 I I 
award nominees and recipients. In addition, the Petitioner provided a photograph of her Production 
Plaque with Regional Emmy Statuette, an item described on thel !website as available 
for purchase. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. The 
Director found that the record did not demonstrate sufficiently that the Petitioner's I I 
award was nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in her field. Rather, according to 
documentation from the website of the awarding entity I I the award amounted to 
regional recognition, as its website indicates it represents the I I region, and "covers 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that thel Iaward "is [] granted by the National Academy 
of Television Arts & Sciences ("NATAS") through its ___________ __,Chapter" 
showing that I I are part of NAT AS, the organization that bestows the Emmys, an 
extensive range of awards for artistic and technical merit for the American and international television 
industry. 
First, in order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate her own receipt of lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Althou h not addressed b the Director, the record shows that the Petitioner did not receive the 2020 
award; rather, the film I I its production company, 
and its executive producers, andI I are the named recipients. 4 The 
record indicates that subsequent to the 2020 I I award ceremony, and consistent with 
information on the organization's website regarding how "to purchase a Commemorative Emmy or a 
Recognition Award," the Petitioner purchased a Recognition Award for "individuals who made a 
significant contribution to a winning piece's award-worthiness but were not listed on the original 
entry." 
2 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual.. 
3 Id. 
4 The 2020 Award Nominations and Emmy Recipients list also indicates thatl I 
received two other I forl I and and one nomination for 
3 
The background information regarding the annual 20201 Iindicates they were awarded 
on I I 2021, in over 120 categories with "over 1000 entries this year with 393 Emmy 
nominations." The submitted list of the 2020 Recipients indicates there were 
approximately 177 I I awarded, including for production design. If the organizers 
intended to recognize the Petitioner individually for her role as production designer of I I it 
appears that they could have done so by bestowing her with an individual award. While we recognize 
that this role is essential in television production, it remains that the Petitioner was not the recipient of 
the 2020 Award and, therefore, the award does not satisfy the plain language of this 
regulation. 
Further, assuming that the Petitioner had established her receipt of the 2020 I IAward, we 
agree with the Director 's determination that the record did not demonstrate sufficiently that the I I 
I !award was nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the Petitioner's field. 
Rather, according to documentation from website of the Cha ter, 
the award amounted to regional recognition, as the awarding organization represents the 
Dregion , and "covers _______________ 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that thel I award "is [] granted by the National Academy 
of Television Arts & Sciences ("NATAS") through its ____________ Chapter" 
showing that are art of NAT AS, the organization that bestows the Emmys. The 
record demonstrates that the are awards granted by the _________ 
ChapterofNA TAS. The Chapter is one of 19 regional chapters, 
and the I are distinct from the Emmy Award which corresponds with high-level awards 
such as the Oscar, Tony, or Grammy performing arts awards. The NATAS website reflects that 
"[e]ach Chapter awards Emmys in their region .. . . " A Few Words About Our Regional Chapters, 
National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, https://theemmys.tv/chapters/ (accessed June 28, 
2024). 
Moreover, the Petitioner also rovided several articles dated or 12021 that mention that the 
won the I Iaward. An article from 
Whatwomenwant-mag.com provides that examines local government in l _____ 
in the 1970'sin the l 970's ______________ an article from Masrawy.com provides the 
____ is awarded "for television production in several fields in the television industry." This 
evidence does not address the significance of the Petitioner's I I award, and does 
demonstrate, for example, that the I IAwards program enjoys the major media coverage 
or the same recognition as that documented for NATAS' Emmy awards. Therefore, the submitted 
articles are not sufficient to establish that thel I award winners receive a level of media 
coverage that is commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized award in the 
entertainment industry. Additionally, the record lacks the criteria this regional entity relied upon to 
select the winners of this accolade. Based on the above, the Petitioner has not established that she 
meets this criterion. 
4 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In addressing whether the Petitioner meet this criterion, USCIS first determines whether the published 
material was related to the person and the person's specific work in the field for which classification 
is sought. 5 The published material should be about the person, relating to the person's work in the 
field, not just about the person's employer and the employer's work or another organization and that 
organization's work. 6 USCIS then determines whether the publication qualifies as a professional 
publication, major trade publication, or other major media publication. 7 
The record includes an Internet Movie Database (IMDb) printout, indicating that the Petitioner 
worked as a production designer, art director or assistant art director on several ro·ects between 2012 
and 2023, including: I 1(2012); (2012 TV Series); 2012 • 
2013 TV Series • 2014 TV Series);(2014 Short); 
__(2018); and (2020 Short). This document does not satisfy the criterion because 
it does not include information about the author. In addition, other than listing her role in the 
productions, the printout does not provide any additional information about her or her work as a 
production designer or art director. 
In addition, the record reflects the Petitioner provided 18 articles posted online. 8 We note that 12 of 
the articles do not contain the regulatory requirement of the "title, date, and author of the material." 
Specifically, articles posted on Egyptindependent.com, Broadcastprome.com , Dailynewsegypt.com, 
Almasryalyoum.com, and Youm7.com do not include the required authors of the material. 
Furthermore, an additional 7 articles do not indicate the publications, the date, and the author of the 
material. 
Thus, the Petitioner submitted 6 articles (Whatwomenwant-mag.com; Egypttoday.com; 
Masrawy.com; Shorouknews.com (2); Hebdo.ahram.org.eg) reflecting published material about the 
Petitioner relating to her work and including the required title, date, and author. In addition, the 
Petitioner provided average daily visitors, rankings, and percentiles of global Internet users from 
HypeStat: Whatwomenwant-mag .com (6,900, 653,842nd, .00014%); Egypttoday.com (11,200, 
793,898th, .0002273%); Masrawy.com (679,900, 41,33 lst, .0137923%); and Shorouknews.com 
(89,700, 486,000th, .00473%). She also submitted data from SimilarWeb which indicates that 
5 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l) . 
6 Id. 
7 Id. 
8 We note that in response to the Director's re uest for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted an article titled 
ublished b vo a ela.com in 2023. In addition, she submitted an article titled I 
_______________ __, published by shoutoutla.com in 2023. As the Directo r 
noted, these articles were published subsequent to the filing of this petition in July 2023. The Petitioner must establish 
that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing 
through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(I) . As these published materials submitted in response to the RFE cannot 
establish the Petitioner' s eligibility as of the date of filing, we need not evaluate whether they otherwise satisfy the plain 
language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
5 
Masrawy.com has a global rank of 4,179 and a country rank of 23, and Shorouknews.com has a global 
rank of 21,572 and a country rank of 212. 
However, the Petitioner has not explained the significance of the statistics and rankings and how such 
data supports a determination that these websites qualify as "major media" by having a high circulation 
or distribution relative to other online publications. 9 Further, based on the low figures, rankings, and 
percentiles, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that any of the websites are tantamount to major media. 
Moreover, the record does not contain information relating to Hebdo.ahram.org.eg as a professional 
or major trade publication or other major medium. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted YouTube screenshots of two videos posted by land I___ 
from episodes of the show, and a third Y ouTube screen shot of a video posted by 
the Egyptian TV channel I I All three videos report on the 
Petitioner's receipt of a Iaward and are accompanied by a transcription to demonstrate 
published material about her relating to her work. However, the Petitioner did not establish that the 
show I Irepresents a major medium. In addition, the Petitioner noted that the 
Y ouTube channels of Iand ___________ have 6.94 million, 
380,000, and 125,000 subscribers, respectively. However, she did not demonstrate the significance of 
6.94 million, 380,000, or 125,000 subscribers on a YouTube channel. 1 ° For the reasons discussed 
above, the Petitioner did not show she meets every element of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 e .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), users determines whether the person 
has made original contributions in the field. 11 users then determines whether the original 
contributions are of major significance to the field. 12 Examples of relevant evidence include, but are 
not limited to: published materials about the significance of the person's original work; testimonials, 
letters, and affidavits about the persons original work; documentation that the person's original work 
was cited at a level indicative of major significance in the field; and patents or licenses deriving from 
the person's work or evidence of commercial use of the person's work. 13 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted letters of support from experts in her field 
which are highly complimentary of her work and professional accomplishments. However, the 
Director determined that the testimonial evidence did not establish that she has made original 
9 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual , supra, at F.2(B)(l) (providing that in evaluating whether a submitted publication 
is a professional publication , major trade publication , or other major media, relevant factors include the intended audience 
(for professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade 
publications and other major media). 
10 The Petitioner provided screenshots and transcripts for two additional interviews with the Petitioner, but the screenshots, 
which are in the Arabic language, are not accompanied by an English language translation and the required certification 
from the translator. 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 
the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. 
11 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l) . 
12 Id. 
13 Id. 
6 
I 
contributions of major significance in the field. He emphasized that while they discuss the Petitioner's 
contributions as applied to specific productions, such as and 
I the letters lacked specificity as to how the Petitioner's work has impacted the field of 
production design. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the documentation submitted, including 
"letters from professionals and experts in the industry" constitute "ample independent and objective 
evidence to substantiate [the Petitioner's] original contributions and the significan[t] impact of her work." 
Upon review, we observe that the individuals who provided letters in support of the petition attest to 
the Petitioner's artistic and technical talents as a production designer, list her film credits, and contain 
assertions that she is highly regarded throughout the industry. We have no reason to question the 
credentials of the industry experts who provided letters in support of the petition or to doubt the 
credibility of their statements or the sincerity of their praise for the Petitioner's work. However, the 
letters focus on the Petitioner's contributions to specific projects rather than specifically articulating 
how her contributions are of major significance in the field and have impacted subsequent work. We 
address a representative sample of the letters below but have reviewed and considered each one . 
the co-producer and co-director ofl lindicates he worked closely with the 
Petitioner "to create stylized reenactments that helped shape the visual aesthetic of the film and bring 
the story to life" and her "eye for design, tenacious work ethic, and passion made her a valued member 
of the team .... " Screenwriter and director I l who worked with the Petitioner on a 
family planning awareness campaign in 2012, states that she "has a unique and sharp taste in location 
choices, sets, costumes, and props .... and developed a precise look and feel of the campaign film, 
which is exactly what I was looking for." Director who worked with the Petitioner 
on his second short filml lwhile they were students at 
states that she "interpreted my vision for the look and feel of the film" and "brought texture and 
familiarity to the stark imagery of the film." He calls her "one of the very top production designers 
and art directors in Egypt." I I a producer who worked with the Petitioner on several 
advertising campaigns between 2015 and 2018, describes the "identifiable features" of her production 
design as "precisely composed imagery, imbued with a wash of one or two dominant colors, supported 
by iconic visual details that convey key elements of the story." 
While the letters submitted with the initial filing describe the Petitioner's original contributions to 
specific productions in some detail, they do not comment on how these contributions to individual 
projects were of major significance, such that they had a remarkable influence or impact in the field 
of production design. While Mr.I I asserts the Petitioner's standing in her field, the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) does not indicate that attaining "one of the very top" is a relevant factor 
in determining whether an individual has made an original contribution of major significance in the 
field. Rather, a petitioner's overall standing in the field is evaluated in a final merits determination. 
The Petitioner provided additional expert testimony in response to the Director's RFE. In a second 
letter submitted in response to the RFE, Mr.I !relates his work in 2009 with the Petitioner, as 
Second Production Designer, on commercial advertising projects such as the,!.-_,._ 
TV commercial, the project, and the ______ __,campaign. He asserts 
that her "ability to evoke the essence of different places through her design" on his film ____ 
"was nothing short of astounding." He notes I I "was selected for the ____ 
competition at the 20141 I Film Festival" and won "several awards around the world." 
7 
In addition, Mr. I I broadly asserts that the Petitioner's "innovative approaches and fresh 
perspectives have had a notable influence on the field, leading to the development of new techniques 
and standards that benefit the entire American film and production industry," but he does not provide 
specific examples of original contributions and explain how they have been majorly significant in the 
field. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 
F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). It is the Petitioner's burden to both specify her original contributions 
and to document the major significance of those contributions in the field. Without additional detail 
explaining her "innovative approaches" relating to new or innovative techniques or standards, the 
letter does not establish that the Petitioner's work has had a demonstrable impact in her field 
commensurate with a contribution of major significance. 
Further, in a second letter submitted in response to the RFE, Mr. I I who produced 
credited the Petitioner with playing "a pivotal role" in "designing the sets and costumes, meticulously 
selecting color palettes, and ensuring historical accuracy" of I I which "went on to receive 
four Emmy nominations I IChapter) winning three." While D I I received recognition from film festivals and I received several I I 
this recognition has not been linked to the Petitioner's production design contributions to the movies 
and does not establish how those contributions were of "major significance in the field" consistent 
with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Overall, the letters submitted in response to the RFE pointed to awards or award nominations received 
by films on which the Petitioner worked, and her overall reputation in her field, but do not contain 
specific, detailed information identifying or explaining the unusual influence her work has had in her 
field. However, we emphasize that evidence related to awards, award nominations, and published 
materials concerning the Petitioner's work has been considered under the appropriate criteria. None 
of that evidence specifically recognizes the Petitioner for making an original contribution of major 
significance that has impacted or influenced her field, nor does the record sufficiently establish a 
connection between that evidence and the significance of any original contributions she has made to 
the field of production design. 
Finally, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted her proposed professional plan, 
evidence of claimed designs for the I !Music Festival stage and a 20191 Iphoto 
shoot event, and her invitations to speak atl land the I lin Egypt. She maintains on 
appeal that her design for the mesic festival stage and photo shoot event demonstrate the "originality" 
of her work, while her speaking invitations show her "broad influence." However, she does not further 
elaborate, specifically identify her contributions, or explain their "originality" or "broad influence." 
Unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence. See, e.g., Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 
(BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief: motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not 
entitled to any evidentiary weight"). Regardless, simply making contributions is not sufficient to meet 
this criterion unless the Petitioner shows those contributions have been majorly significantly in the 
field. 14 For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner 
has not shown she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
14 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l) (evidence that the person's work was funded, patented, or 
published while potentially demonstrating the work's originality, will not necessarily establish, on its own, that the work 
is of major significance in the field). 
8 
Evidence that the individual has pe1formed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The petitioner must establish performance in a leading or critical role for an organization, 
establishment, or division or department of an organization or establishment, and the petitioner must 
demonstrate whether the organization or establishment, or the department or division for which the 
person holds or held a leading or critical role, has a distinguished reputation. 15 The Petitioner 
maintains eligibility for this criterion based on her role as a production designer for the short films 
I landl I 
The Director determined that the record does not reflect that a short film is an "organization or 
establishment." Rather, the record reflects that I I is the property of 
and I I is a student production of the The record does 
not contain a letter from ________ detailing how the Petitioner's role was leading or 
critical to the organization as a whole or its distinguished reputation. In two letters, Mr. I I co­
producer and co-director of I I indicated that the Petitioner's contributions as a production 
designer "were significant" and "played a pivotal role in establishing the visual style of the film." 
Regarding I I in two letters, Mr. I I states that the Petitioner's contribution as the 
film's production designer was "superb," "a key part of the success" of the film, and "elevated the 
storytelling." The record does not contain a letter from ___________ that would 
establish her leading or critical role with that organization or its distinguished reputation. 
In sum, the Petitioner did not establish how the evidence shows that in her position as a production 
designer for the movies I I and I I resulted in a leading or critical role for 
_______ or the I Inor does it establish their 
distinguished reputations. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish she satisfies the four categories of evidence discussed above. Although 
the Petitioner also argues eligibility for the commercial successes criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(x), we need not reach this additional ground because the Petitioner cannot fulfill the 
initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We also need not provide 
the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we 
reserve these issues. 16 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding 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 those progressing toward the top. Matter ofPrice, 20 
15 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
16 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); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is othe1wise ineligible). 
9 
I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (concluding that even major league level athletes do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland 
Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 
1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small 
percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at *l (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) (citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding 
denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of 
gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win 
this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably 
one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball 
coach). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of her work is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or 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 )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate the Petitioner has garnered national 
or international acclaim in the field, and she 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). The record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing the Petitioner among the 
upper echelon in her field. 
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. 
10