dismissed EB-1A Case: Saddlebred Horse Training

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24829454 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 28, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a professional Saddlebred Horse trainer , seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 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 met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing 
the Petitioner's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or by meeting three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3). 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 ofChawathe, 25 l&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 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States . Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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-part analysis. First , a petitioner may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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) 
( 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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a professional Saddlebred Horse trainer who has participated in show horse 
competitions in South Africa and the United States. The Petitioner currently operates a horse training 
and sales facility inl I Kentucky. She intends to continue to train and show horses 
competitively in the United States. 
The record shows that the Petitioner submitted evidence to demonstrate both that she received a major, 
internationally recognized award, and that she satisfied at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director determined that, while the Petitioner did not establish 
her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, she met one of the five criteria she claimed 
to have satisfied: participation as a judge of others' work in her field of endeavor. 1 The Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that she met criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), 
(iii), and (v). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets these additional criteria, as well as the 
requirements pertaining to receipt of a major internationally recognized award; she states that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) misapplied the law and misinterpreted the facts of the 
case. 
As more fully discussed below, we agree, in part, with the Director's analysis of the evidence. Where 
we disagree we have provided an explanation of our determination. We conclude that the evidence of 
record does not satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3); therefore, we will dismiss the 
Petitioner's appeal. 
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 Director noted in his decision that 
the record should demonstrate that the award is internationally recognized and generally regarded as 
a major award in the field. In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner cited her first­
place awards at the World's Championship Horse Show inl I Kentucky, in 2019, 2020, and 
2021, as well as her receipt of four I I Championship titles. The record includes 
documentation of these awards and information about the competition's history from the event's 
1 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
2 
website. The Director's decision implies some doubt as to whether the Petitioner won the awards she 
claims to have won. The Director noted that the Petitioner's name does not appear on certain trophies 
and he concluded that lists showing the Petitioner's placement results "are not official documents," 
declining to use information provided to assess the veracity of the placement results through 
subscription-only access to a website, com. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
the absence of her name from the trophies should not be conclusive evidence that did not win the titles 
she claims to have won; she refers to documentation in the form of letters of endorsement, certificates, 
and competition records as corroborating evidence of her receipt of the awards, 
Upon review of the record, the Petitioner has established that she received the awards; the record 
includes letters of endorsement that reference the Petitioner winning several of the awards listed, and 
the Petitioner verified her wins through online sources. As to whether the awards are regarded as 
major, internationally recognized achievements, the Director determined that there was no objective 
evidence to assess the scope of the awards' recognition; the record did not include evidence that the 
competition for the awards is recognized by the general public, that competition results are widely 
reported in international media, or that the awards gamer attention comparable to other major, globally 
recognized awards. On appeal, the Petitioner quotes from a Wikipedia page for the I I 
which promotes the event as "the world's richest and most 
prestigious horse show." The Petitioner also asserts, 
[T]he very phrase 'World Champion' denotes that the achievement is a major 
achievement of international renown-the very top, in fact, in Petitioner's field of 
expertise of Saddlebred horse training and competing in the global equine industry. 
These World Championship Titles have garnered Petitioner international attention, 
renown, and permanence in her field of expertise. 
The record, however, does not include documentation to corroborate this assertion. While letters of 
endorsement speak to the Petitioner's accomplishments as a Saddlebred Horse trainer and competitor, 
neither the letters nor other documentation in the record provide evidence showing that the World 
Championship Horse Show grants an award or prize that is considered to be internationally recognized. 
Because the record does not provide evidence to establish that the Petitioner's awards constitute a one­
time achievement of a caliber considered to be internationally recognized within the field, we conclude 
that the Petitioner has not established eligibility in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
In addition to evidence to establish that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, the Petitioner submitted evidence to demonstrate her qualifications under four of the alternate 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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). 
3 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that she received prizes or awards that 
are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in her field of endeavor. 2 The Petitioner 
submitted evidence of numerous awards and show placements that she has received throughout her 
career, including photos of trophies, lists of competition results, information about horse show events 
in which she competed, evidence of relevant association memberships, and letters of endorsement. 
The Director determined that this evidence did not establish that the Petitioner met the requirements 
of this criterion. As described above, the Director dismissed lists showing the Petitioner's placement 
results and did not to give evidentiary weight to photos of trophies that do not depict the Petitioner's 
name. On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that the letters of endorsement, certificates, and competition 
records serve to verify her achievements. 
As noted above, the Petitioner has established her receipt of the claimed awards. While the trophies 
do not identify her by name, the competition results and letters of endorsement corroborate her claims 
of receiving the awards corresponding to the trophies. The placement results and awards are also 
corroborated by the letters of endorsement and by online sources. A separate portion of the Director's 
decision focused on the categorization of the Petitioner's field of expertise as encompassing her 
abilities as both a trainer and a competitor. The Director affirmed that the Petitioner must establish 
her extraordinary ability as either a trainer or a competitor and dismissed this claim of combined roles 
as an assertion from the Petitioner's counsel; the Director stated that the assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence 3 and concluded that no evidence was submitted to establish that the terms are used 
interchangeably. On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that her abilities training and showing horses 
competitively are interconnected and should not be viewed as separate occupations. We disagree with 
the Director's characterization of the Petitioner's occupation and field of expertise; the evidence 
identifies the Petitioner as a horse trainer and a competitor at shows in which she has received awards 
based on the performance of horses that she trained and presented. However, we agree with the 
Director's analysis of whether the record demonstrates that the Petitioner's awards are lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes; the record does not include documentation to demonstrate on 
what scale the Petitioner's awards are recognized. The Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements 
for the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the fieldfor which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the associations is based on the 
individual being judged by recognized national or international experts as having attained outstanding 
achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 4 The record includes evidence that the 
Petitioner has been a member of several equestrian associations in South Africa and currently is a 
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 awards or prizes; the national or international significance of the awards 
or prizes in the field; and the number of awardees or prize recipients, as well as any limitations on competitors. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 (Appendix), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
3 See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 l&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). 
4 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2 (Appendix), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
4 
member of the followin or anizations in the United States: the aforementioned I 
While 
additional documentation concerning admittance to the South African associations was not included 
in the record, bylaws for the latter three groups provide requirements for membership such as age, 
length of experience, participation as a competitor, employment in the field of equestrianism, 
character, and payment of dues. The Director determined that membership in these associations did 
not appear to require outstanding achievements as assessed by experts in the field. On appeal, the 
Petitioner reiterates that "these associations are limited to professionals who derive their income from 
the equestrian field, and some, such as I I further limit their membership to those they find 
acceptable both personally and professionally." While the record demonstrates that the Petitioner had 
to meet certain requirements to become a member of these associations, the record does not include 
documentation showing that membership in these associations requires the attainment of any specific 
achievements judged as outstanding by experts in the field. The Petitioner has not established that she 
meets the requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
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). 
To meet this criterion, the published material must be about the Petitioner and related to her specific 
work in her field of endeavor. The Petitioner initially submitted an article from Farmer's Weekly that 
featured the work of her mother, which the Director concluded was not about the Petitioner. The 
Petitioner also included articles that consist of her photo and reference her participation or placement 
at shows during her childhood in South Africa. The Director noted that these brief articles appear to 
have been from regional publications and do not identify authors, determining that the Petitioner did 
not submit any qualifying material from professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
We note that the record also contains pages that include photos of the Petitioner and other individuals 
presenting at horse shows; these appear to be promotional materials from I IS tables in 
Kentucky and other businesses in the region, which also do not qualify as material about the Petitioner 
from major publications. On appeal, the Petitioner states that these and the Farmer's Weekly article 
are "relevant to Petitioner's work and competition in the field of endeavor in that the expertise and 
skills gained during her youth, addressed in the article( s ), has [sic] enabled her to achieve the superior 
status in the industry that she has today." The Petitioner does not acknowledge the lack of substance 
or absence of authors for these articles that note her early participation in horse shows. While the 
articles may demonstrate the Petitioner's history of participation in the field, the record does not 
demonstrate that the articles qualify for the requirements of this criterion; the record does not include 
documentation from professional or major trade publications or other major media concerning the 
Petitioner and her work in the field. The Petitioner has not established that she meets the requirements 
of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
To meet this criterion, the record must establish that the Petitioner has received a salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services in relation to other individuals working in the field of 
5 
endeavor. The record includes salary information for animal and horse trainers from the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics' O*Net and Zippia.com, respectively, as well as tax documents and internal financial 
information from _________ The Director determined that, because the record does 
not include documentation showing the Petitioner's individual earnings, she has not established her 
eligibility under this criterion. A draft5 copy of page one of the 2021 partnership tax return forl I 
I I shows gross receipts or sales at $667,589 and ordinary business income totaling 
$254,686, which the Petitioner asserted in response to the RFE and asserts again on appeal is a sum 
of "more than four times the prevailing wage in that field." The Petitioner states that, because she 
owns and runs the business, "the company's earnings are directly related to [her] remuneration." 
However, the Petitioner is not the sole member of I I instead, the record 
indicates that she owns only 50% of the membership interests of the limited liability company (LLC). 
The Petitioner did not provide the remaining pages of the LLC' s 2021 partnership tax return, including 
all schedules, to evince her 50% share of its income, deductions, credits, and other items. Further, the 
tax return does not indicate that the LLC paid her any salaries, wages, or guaranteed payments to 
partners. Additionally, the record does not contain the Petitioner's personal tax returns or wage 
statements. Thus, we are unable to determine her salary and other remuneration for services, and how 
such remuneration relates to other individuals working in the field, based on the insufficient 
documentation in the record. 
The record also includes evaluations of the company from the company's bookkeeper and from the 
Petitioner herself The bookkeeper estimates that, in combination with the Petitioner's skillset and the 
fact that the business operates in both the training and sale of horses, the business has a "25-30% 
higher earning potential than other horse trainers in this area." The Petitioner's evaluation estimates 
the value of the business at $386,000. These estimates are not supported by objective financial 
information for the Petitioner's business as it compares to other similar businesses, and the estimates 
to not provide specific insights into the Petitioner's salary or other remuneration for services. We note 
that also absent from the record is evidence of earnings accrued through any prizes awarded to the 
Petitioner through competitions at which prize money was purportedly awarded. The evidence of 
record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has commanded a high salary or other remuneration 
for services in relation to others in her field. Thus, the Petitioner has not established that she meets 
the requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
evidence that meets 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. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of her work is 
5 Because this tax return does not appear to have been filed and processed by the Internal Revenue Service, it is of limited 
probative value in these proceedings. The Petitioner must support her Assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
6 
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 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 Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7