dismissed EB-1A Case: Religious Writing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6197943 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 23, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a religious faith writer, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had a qualifying one-time achievement, or that he met at least three of the 
ten alternative evidentiary criteria, as required for this classification . The Director further determined 
that the Petitioner did not establish that his entry would substantially benefit prospectively the United 
States . 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, asserts that the Director mischaracterized 
previously submitted evidence, and maintains that he is qualified for the benefit sought. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010) . The Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this matter de novo . See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 
l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we agree with the Director's determination 
and will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
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. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, that he is a "religious 
faith writer." Where asked to provide information about his proposed employment, he indicated that 
he intends to "continue research & writing concerning issues of faith, man's spiritual beliefs and 
impacts on persons with disabilities." On appeal, he claims that his area of extraordinary ability is 
"charitable and humanitarian works" and that his writings are part of his overall mission to serve those 
with mental and physical disabilities. 
A. One-Time Achievement 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that a petitioner may submit evidence of a one-time 
achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. The Petitioner states that he is the 
recipient of the I I medal and that this honor is a qualifying one-time 
achievement. 
According to the submitted evidence regarding the ~I -~-------~l,_m_o_st_o_f _w_h_i_ch_w_a~s 
sourced from Wikipedia, 1 it is "an award conferred by thel I 
" As there are no assurances about the .__ _____________________ ___. 
reliability of the content from this open, user-edited Internet site, information from Wikipedia will be 
accorded no evidentiary weight. See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 
1 Wikipedia is an online, open source, collaborative encyclopedia that explicitly states it cannot guarantee the validity of 
its content. See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia (last visited April 21, 2020), https://en.wikipedia.org/ 
wiki/Wikipedia:General _ disclaimer. 
2 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner's I I medal was conferred by Pope 
I I and bestowed by the Archbishop of the j l Kenya in 1999. The record 
indicates that the Petitioner received the award based on his leadership in operting lhe I I 
I I School for children with mental and physical challenges, located in the district. The 
Petitioner notes that his award received media coverage from a Kenyan newspaper and emphasizes 
that other recipients have included Mother Teresa "and others who have been similarly extraordinary 
in their ability to engage in chartable and humanitarian works." The Petitioner previous!] submitted 
a screenshot of Wikipedia' s incomplete list of recipients of the ] as well as 
Wikipedia biography pages for select prior recipients. 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have risen 
to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one-time 
achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying as 
major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 
1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. The House Report specifically cited to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement; other examples which enjoy major, 
international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and an Olympic Medal. 
The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement must be 
a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel Laureates, 
the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the 
nationality of the awardees, reflects a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large cash 
prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time 
achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress 
that the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the field as one of the top 
awards. 
Here, the Petitioner did not present evidence demonstrating that thd I awards 
are covered by international media, are recognized by the general public, or gamer attention 
comparable to other major, globally recognized awards similar to the Nobel Prize. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets the requirements of a one-time achievement. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated 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 submitted evidence relating to five of the ten evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and that he satisfied one of those criterion, relating to 
authorship of scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The record reflects that the Petitioner 
authored two booksJ I and 
I land provided sufficient e;°idence to establish ihe schol~rly nature ~o_f_h-is_p_u_b_l_ic-a-ti_o_n_s_--~ 
The Director determined, however, that the Petitioner did not satisfy the four remaining claimed 
criteria related to his receipt lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, published materials 
3 
about him, original contributions of major significance, and performance in a leading or critical role 
for organizations or establishments that have a distinct reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), 
(v), and (viii). On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he meets the criteria relating to lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized awards and published material about him, which will be discussed below. 
The Petitioner does not contest the Director's determination that he did not satisfy the original 
contributions or leading or critical role criteria, and therefore we deem these issues to be waived. See, 
e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the 
Petitioner did not satisfy at least three 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) 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate his receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. 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. 2 
The Petitioner claims that his .__ ________ __. medal, at a minimum, should be considered a 
lesser internationally recognized prize or award for excellence and contests the Director's 
determination that the award appears to be "local in nature." While it appears that thel I 
I I is an internationally recognized honor within the Roman Catholic community, bestowed 
on those of Catholic faith by the Pope, the record does not establish that it is awarded "for excellence" 
or that it is intended for those in the Petitioner's field of endeavor, or in any particular field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner provided ample evidence of his receipt of thd I but, as noted by 
the Director, there is little probative information in the record regarding the award or the criteria used 
for selection of recipients. The Petitioner provided the Wikipedia entry for the award and the Wikipedia 
biography pages for some prior recipients. For the reasons already discussed, information from 
Wikipedia can be accorded little, if any, evidentiary weight. Nevertheless, we note that the submitted 
Wikipedia biographies submitted do not support a finding that the award is given for excellence in the 
Petitioner's field of endeavor. For example, recipients have included an American businessman and 
sports franchise owner who received the award for "generosity to the Catholic Church" and a Filipino 
musician and composer who received the award for "his many contributions in the field of religious 
themed compositions and sacred works." Several of the biographical entries for previous winners simply 
mention that they received the award for "service to the Roman Catholic Church." 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. (indicating that an award limited to competitors from a single 
institution, for example. may have little national or international significance). 
4 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a new letter, from Most Rev.I I current Archbishop of 
thd I who states that thel hs awarded by the Pope through 
a confidential consultative process and does not in any way involve the awardee until the evaluation 
process assessment." However, this statement does not provide sufficient insight into the process or 
criteria for bestowing the award to establish that it is prize or award for excellence in the Petitioner's field 
of endeavor. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field.for which class[fication 
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) 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion because he did not submit 
evidence of published material that appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. The Petitioner provided the following evidence: 
• A captioned photograph ( credited to "Standard Correspondent") from an unidentified 
publication, indicatin that the Petitioner was conferred as a Catholic church elder after 
receiving the old medal. 
• An article titled from an unidentified ublication. 
'----------------------------' • An article titled 
unidentified publication. 
from an 
• A newspaper artic;.::.'le.:::....::ti:.::tl:.::.ed.::::......!:' ========::::;-------' dated._l -.----.-----'I l 996. 
• An article titled published in I I 2011 edition of 
American Ideals. 
• A review of the Petitioner's books by ~I _____ ~I that appeared on the website 
We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to 
meet this criterion. The article titled ~----------~~' is about the Petitioner but the 
submitted newspaper clipping does not identify the name of the publication in which it appeared or 
the date of publication. The article titled 'I I is also about the Petitioner 
and relates to his work, but the full name of the publication cannot be determined based on the 
submitted evidence. 
Regarding the article '----=--------------------____. we note that, apart 
from the title and a captioned photograph that identifies the Petitioner, the text of article is illegible 
and we cannot determine the title or date of the publication or the contents of the article to determine 
whether it is about the Petitioner and relates to his work. 
The article published by American Ideals is about the Petitioner; however, the record does not establish 
that this magazine, published by the non-profit organization American Ideals Foundation, Inc., is a 
qualifying publication. According to the magazine's editorial notes, American Ideals Foundation was 
established to "put the arts to use in honoring the sacrifices made by veterans and their families and 
enhancing the quality of life for young artists and children with special needs." It appears that the 
magazine is distributed to those who are dues-paying members of the foundation, but it is unclear 
5 
whether it has a wider audience. Based on the information provided, we cannot determine that 
American Ideals is a professional publication, major trade publication or other major media. 
We note that the submitted book review is not about the Petitioner and was not accompanied by 
evidence that the reviewer's personal website qualifies as a major trade publication, professional 
publication or other major media. Finally, we cannot determine that the captioned photograph, 
although it briefly mentions the Petitioner, is published material about him and his work. The clipping 
of the photograph does not identify the title or date of the publication. Further, it is unclear that the 
photograph accompanied an article, or whether the photograph alone appeared in the publication. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that "[t]he newspaper in which article was published, The Standard ... 
has a 48% market share in Kenya with a circulation of 74,000" and qualifies as major media. 
However, we cannot determine to which newspaper article the Petitioner is referring. As discussed, 
the name of the publication did not appear on any of the submitted newspaper clippings. We note that 
the above-referenced photograph is credited to "Standard Correspondent." However, as discussed, a 
photograph of the Petitioner is not sufficient to meet this criterion and the photograph was not 
accompanied by an article or other required information such as the date of publication. Further, the 
circulation statistics cited by the Petitioner were obtained from The Standard's Wikipedia page ( a copy 
of which is also submitted on appeal). The Petitioner has therefore not submitted probative evidence 
demonstrating that The Standard qualifies as major media in Kenya based on its circulation relative to 
other publications. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence of published materials that meet 
all elements of this evidentiary criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. As a result, we need not 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 that 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 the top. 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 that the significance of his 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 )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he 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). 
Since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding whether his entry would substantially 
benefit prospectively the United States, as required by section 203(b )(1 )(A)(3) of the Act. See INS v. 
6 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7