dismissed EB-1A Case: Sound Design And Editing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19843251 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 16, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the sound design and editing 
field . See Immigration and Nationality Act(the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(1XA). 
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 that the Petitioner had 
not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which he must meet at least three. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 . Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 indivi duals 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 recognition 
of his or her achievements in the fie ld through a one -time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204 .5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then 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 has been employed within the sound design and editing field by ___ 
I I since 2009 . Because the Petitioner has not indicated or demonstrated that 
he has received a major, internationally recognized award at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), he 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 that the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains eligibility for seven criteria. After reviewing all of the presented evidence, the record does 
not establish that the Petitioner meets the requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien'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). 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his receipt of al I Award 
and a I Award. In order to fulfill this criterion, the petitioner must demonstrate that he 
received prizes or awards, and they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. 1 
Regarding thel I Award, the Petitioner references evidence fro showing that he 
received a I in the for at the second 
annual ceremony in 2010. In addition, the screenshots reflect that the Awards is produced 
by I and land honors the best in online video and the creators 
behind it." Further, the Petitioner provided documentation indicating that some media coverage, such 
as usatoday.com, hollywoodreporter.com, and ew.com, reported on the background. nominees, and 
winners from the past ten years. Although he demonstrated his receipt of al I Award, the 
Petitioner did not establish the award's national or international recognition for excellence in his field 
of endeavor. The Petitioner did not show that his sound design and editing field recognizes his 
I I Award as a national or international award for excellence. The presented evidence, for 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https ://www.uscis.gov /policymanual/H1MUPolicyManual.html. 
2 
instance, does not discuss or acknowledge his field's view ofreceiving a Award to reflect its 
national or international recognition for excellence. 
As it relates to the I IA ward, the Petitioner references a screenshot from I I 
showingthatthe film] I received an award atthe fifth annuall I Awards in 2017. 2 
The description of this type of evidence in the regulation provides that the focus should be on the 
individual's receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to his or her employer's receipt of the awards or 
prizes. 3 Here, the record reflects that the film rather than the Petitioner received the award. Although the 
Petitioner submitted additional screenshots from imdb .com that lists the Petitioner as a winner at the 2017 
I !Awards, theevidencefroml ldoesnotcorroboratethisclaim. Moreover,asthere 
are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site, we will 
not assign weight to infonnation fromimdb.com. Cf. LaamilemBadasa v. MichaelMukasey, 540F.3d 
909 (8th Cir. 2008) (finding that another open, user-edited internet site Wiki edia, lacks reliability of 
the content). 4 Without evidence from the awarding entity, such as or other credible, 
independent sources, the Petitioner did not establish that he received a 2017 Award. 
Notwithstanding the above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that thel I Award is nationally 
or internationally recognized for excellence in his field of endeavor. Although he provided 
information aboutl I and festivals, the Petitioner did not show how the evidence establishes 
the national or international recognition ofl _ awards for excellence in his field of sound 
design and editing. Further, according to the screenshots from I I submitted by the 
Petitioner, "[w ]inners will receive ourl I Trophy ... making what we are sure will 
soon become one of the most coveted awards on the festival circuit, and this is just the beginning," 
opining on its anticipated or projected recognition in the overall festival industry rather than 
demonstrating its national or international recognition for excellence in his field of sound design and 
editing. Moreover, according to the screenshots, "[c]ategories were expanded this year to include 
more awards, many of which will now be awarded a high quality, brushed silver plaque while the 
major categories will be awarded thel I Trophy" and "* indicates awards is a plaque'd award." 
The IA ward claimed by the Petitioner has an asterisk next to its award indication, showing 
that the film did not receive an award in a major category. Even if he established that al I 
Trophy represents a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence, which he did not, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that a lesser "plaque'd award" also constitutes an award "for 
excellence." 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not show that he fulfills this criterion. 
2 
The record also contains a document listing all of the nominees under ea ch category. The film, is listed 
with six other films. In fact, there is no category listing sound designers or editors. 
3 Sec 6 USCJS PolicyManual,supra, atF.2(B)(2). 
4 See also imdb.com: 
Disclaimer of Warranties andLimitationofLiability: The IMDB Services and all information, content, 
materials, products (including software) and other services included on or othe1wise made available to 
you through the IMDB services are provided by IMDB on an "as is" and "as available" basis. IMDB 
makes no representations or warranties ofa ny kind, express or imp lied, as to the operation of the TMDB 
services or the information, content, materials, products (including software) or other services included 
on or othe1wise available to you through the IMDB services. Use of the IMDB services is at your sole 
risk, IMDB reserves the right to withdraw any IMDB services or delete any infmmation from the IMDB 
services at any time in its discretion. 
3 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification 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). 
The Petitioner contends that he meets this criterion based on his membership with the Motion Picture 
Sound Editors (MPSE). In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must show that membership in 
the association is based on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having 
outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 5 
On appeal, the Petitioner references screenshots from mpse.org; a letter froml l l ___ 
__ for MPSE; and recommendation letters. 6 I confirmed the Petitioner's active 
membership status and stated: 
To gain active membership status in MPSE, an applicant must complete and submit an 
application to the Board of Directors. The Board of Director's discusses the applicant's 
qualifications, and acceptance of the applicant requires a majority vote of the Board of 
Directors. The minimum requirement for Active Membership is proof of three (3) 
consecutive years' experience as a sound editor or sound designer or music editor 
cutting Dialogue, ADR, Sound Effects, Foley, or Music or as a Foley Artist. 
Additionally, an applicant must have made, in the judgment of the Board of Directors, 
an outstanding contribution to his or her field of endeavor. The application must be 
completed in full, along with any supporting materials, and must be supported by two 
(2) active members. The Board of Directors detennines any additional requirements. 
In addition, the submitted excerpts of MPSE's '"Constitution and By-Laws" posted on its website 
repeat !statement above. Further, a letter froml I of MPSE, 
indicated that "our final focus has always been on whether the applicant has made an 'outstanding 
contribution' to the field of sound." Although they discuss an "outstanding contribution," the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "outstanding achievements." 
Moreover, a "contribution" is not synonymous with an "achievement." Contribution is defined as: 1) 
the act of contributing, such as a) the giving or supplying of something as a part or share, orb) the 
giving or supplying of something that plays a significant part in making something happen; 2) 
something that is contributed, such as a) something that is given or supplied as a part or share, b) 
5 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (providing an example of admission to membership in the National 
Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, and 
membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
6 The Petitioner provided additional evidence onappealrela ting to his membership status. However, we will not consider 
this evidence for the first time onappealas itwasnot presented before the Director. SccMattcrofSoriano, 19 I&NDec. 
764, 766 (BIA 1988) (providing that if"the petitionerwas put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable 
opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial, we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal for any 
purpose"and that "we will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of proceedings" before the Chief); see also Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&NDec. 533 (BIA 1988). Because the Petitioner had the opp01iunity to submit the evidence at the time 
he filed his petition and in response to the Director's request for evidence, we will not consider this evidence for the first 
time on appeal. 
4 
something that plays a significant part in making something happen, or c) something that is supplied 
for a publication; or 3) a payment imposed by military, civil, or ecclesiastical authorities usually for a 
special or extraordinary purpose. See www.merriam-webster.com. An achievement, on the other 
hand, is defined as: 1) the act of achieving something; 2) a) a result gained by effort orb) a great or 
heroic deed; or 3) the quality and quantity of a student's work. Id. Here, the Petitioner did show that 
membership with MPSE requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
Notwithstanding the above, the Petitioner did not establish that the outstanding contributions are 
judged by recognized national or international experts. Although! land MPSE's constitution 
and bylaws indicated that MPSE's Board of Director's determine whether an applicant has made 
outstanding contributions, they do not discuss the composition of the Board of Directors. The 
Petitioner did not show thatthe Board of Directors is comprised of recognized national or international 
expe1is in their disciplines or fields who judge the outstanding achievements for membership, as 
required under this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion. 
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 order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about him in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of 
the material. 7 In our evaluation, we will first determine whether his evidence reflects published 
material about him relating to his work in the field, which contains the required title, date, and author. 
If the record supports those regulatory requirements, we will then decide whether professional or major 
trade publications or other major media published those materials. 8 
The record reflects that he submitted one article from indianexpress.com, one article from 
newindianexpress.com, one article from firstpost.com, one article from rediff.com, and one article 
from thehindu.com constituting published material about the Petitioner relating to his sound design 
and editing field. In addition, all of these articles contained the necessary titles, dates, and authors. 9 
Initially, the Petitioner provided readership and circulation data related to the printed publications of 
The Indian Express, The New Indian Express, and The Hindu rather than for the websites that posted 
7 Sec 6 USCJS PolicyManual,supra, atF.2(B)(2). 
8 Although the Petitioner submitted additional evidence on appeal relating to a readership survey and newspaper and 
magazine figures, we will not consider this evidence for the first time on appeal as it was not presented before the Director. 
See Soriano, 19 I&NDec. at766; seealsoObaigbena, 19 I&NDec. at 533. 
9 At initial filing, the Petitioner provided additional articles from indianexpress.com (1 ), firstpost.com (2), and 
soundandpicture.com (1) and a book. However, these materials did not reflect published material a bout him relating to his 
work and/or did not contain the required title, date, and author. Further, in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner 
did not continue to c !aim eligibility for th is criterion based on these materials. The Petitioner did maintain eligibility based 
on an a1iicle posted on soundandpicture.com and an a1iicle posted on behindwoods.com. However, the 
soundandpicture.com article did not include the author and did not represent published material about him, and the 
behind woods.com article did not contain the date. Thus, none of these materials mentioned here qualify for this criterion. 
5 
the articles. See, e.g., Victorov v. Barr, No. CV 19-6948-GW-JPRX, 2020 WL 3213788, at *8 
(C.D.C.A. Apr. 9, 2020). In addition, the Petitioner submitted background and contact information 
from firstpost.com. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C.D.C.A. July 6, 2007), aff'd 2009 
WL 6048 8 8 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding that self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to 
the magazine's status is not reliant evidence of a major medium). Finally, the record did not reflect 
that the Petitioner offered evidence relating to the status of rediff.com. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted information from The Indian Express 
claiming that its website has "over 120 million page views a month" and from the The New Indian 
Express asserting that its "readers of the newspaper spread all across the world with a very high NRI 
traffic to the website." See Braga, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, ajf'd 2009 at WL 604888. In addition, he 
offered readership statistics for The Indian Express and The New Indian Express from 
bestmediainfo.com. Again, the record does not show that the articles were printed in the respective 
publications but posted on their websites. See, e.g., Victorov, No. CV 19-6948-GW-JPRX, 2020WL 
3213788, at *8. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided screenshots from themediaant.com highlighting that firstpost.com 
receives 50 million impressions per month and thehindu.com receives 22 million monthly active users 
and from mobilemerchants.com that rediff.com receives 17 million monthly unique visitors. The 
Petitioner, however, did not establish the significance of these statistics, showing that the websites 
represent professional or major trade publication or other major media. 10 For example, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate or explain the meaning of such figures, to reflect major status in India or 
internationally. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of spec[fication for which classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
This regulatory criterion requires a petitioner to show that not only has an individual been invited to 
judge the work of others, but also that the individual actually participated in the judging of the work 
of others in the same of allied field of specialization. 11 The Petitioner did not initially claim eligibility 
for this criterion. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner indicated that he met this criterion 
based on serving on a panel for MPSE' s IA wards and referenced a recommendation letter 
froml I who stated that he "was actually the person who invited [the Petitioner] to se1ve 
on the Awards' panel of judges" and "[the Petitioner's] evaluation of peers' work is of considerable 
value to the board." Although the Petitioner also pointed to the previously discussed letter fromD 
I I the letter makes no mention of the Petitioner serving on a judging panel but indicated that 
MPSE holds the annual I I Awards. In addition, the Petitioner cited tol ts letter 
who stated that "[a]s an active MPSE member, [the Petitioner] is part of the distinguished body of 
10 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual,supra, atF.2(B)(2) (indicating that evidence ofpublished material in professionalormajor 
trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation (on-line or in print) is high 
com pared to other circulation statistics). 
11 See6 USCISPolicyManual,supra,atF.2(B)(2). 
6 
voters responsible for selecting the annual slate of nominees and winners for the highly coveted 
I I Awards." 
The Petitioner's evidence, however, makes broad claims without providing specific, detailed 
information demonstrating that he actually participated as a judge of the work of others. The evidence, 
for instance, does not contain probative information elaborating on whom, what, and when he judged. 
Instead, the letters generally asse1i that the Petitioner was invited to serve and was part of a panel 
without sufficiently describing his judging work. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he submitted an additional letter from lbut makes 
no argument explaining how the letter demonstrates his eligibility for this criterion. In fact, I 
does not discuss the Petitioner serving as a judge for MPSE's I Awards, let alone any 
mention of MPSE or the I Awards. In addition, the Petitioner references evidence relating 
to MPSE and the [Awards. However, none of the documents show the Petitioner's 
participation as a judge. Without further information or supporting evidence, the Petitioner did not 
establish that he participated as a judge for MPSE'sl I Awards. 
The Petitioner also asse1is eligibility for the firsttime on appeal based on his active membership status 
with MPSE and references MPSE's "Constitution and By-Laws," indicating that "[a]ctive members 
in good standing shall have the right to vote at membership meetings." The Petitioner did not make 
this claim before the Director. See Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 7 66; see also Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 
533. Notwithstanding, the Petitioner did not submit evidence showing that he actually voted in his 
capacity as an active member, nor did any of his evidence discussed above make such a claim. Similar 
to his claims regarding the I I Awards, the record does not contain detailed, probative 
information reflecting on whom, what, and when he voted. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that voting at MPSE membership meetings involves participating as a judge of the work 
of others consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that his salary or remuneration is high 
relative to the compensation paid to others working in the field. 12 Initially, the Petitioner provided 
copies of his paystubs and his 2018 IRS Fonn W-2, Wage and Tax Statement from In addition, 
he submitted screenshots from bis.gov reflecting median pay figures for broadcast and sound 
engineering technicians and screenshots from Simply Hired relating to sound engineer salaries. In 
response to the Director's RFE, he offered his 2019 Form W-2, annual salary information for sound 
designers from careersinfilm.com, average sound designer salary data from payscale.com, and average 
annual salary figures for sound mixers from finance.yahoo.com. 
As indicated above, the Petitioner compared his salary to that of the average or median salaries of 
broadcast and sound engineering technicians, sound engineers, sound designers, and sound mixers. 
12 See6 USCISPolicyManual,supra,atF.2(B)(2). 
7 
However, the record does not reflect that employs him in this capacity. Rather, the record shows 
that he is at a supervisory position. Although the record does not include a current job letter specifying 
his position, the records contains documentation referring to the Petitioner as a supervising sound 
designer and editor. For instance, I stated that"[ a ]s a sound designer and supervisor, he is 
tasked with managing editors on his team to complete the project per the client's expectations and 
needs." Further, an article from soundpicture.com I 
___________ referenced the Petitioner as the "supervising sound editor." The 
Petitioner did not compare his salary to other supervising sound designers and editors. Both precedent 
and case law support this applicationof8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour 
golfers); see also Skokos v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) 
(finding salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the 
field); Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965,968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary 
versus other NHL enforcers);Muniv. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440,444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995)(comparing 
salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen ). Here, the Petitioner did not show 
that the comparison of average and median salaries oflower level positions reflects his commandment 
of a high salary in relation to other supervisory sound designers and editors. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
petitions filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard- statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form I-140 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. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 905 F. 2d at 41. Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, 
the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a 
court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant 
petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of 
another immigration petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, 
at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies the criteria relating to awards, memberships, 
published material, judging, and high salary. Although the Petitioner claims eligibility for two 
additional criteria on appeal, relating to original contributions of major significance at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we need not reach these 
additional grounds because the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three 
8 
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. 13 
Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that 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. 
See Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 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 of 
Homeland Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) 
( 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 *1 
(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) (statingthat"[ c ]ourts have 
found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 23 7 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 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. HR 
Rep. No. 101- 723, 59 (Sept. 19, l 990);see also section203(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. Seesection203(b)(l)(A)oftheActand 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Therecorddoesnotcontain 
sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
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, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
13 SeeINSv. Bagamasbad,429U.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 o/L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, n.7 
(declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
9