dismissed EB-1A Case: Sports Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 15738101 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 15, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a sports journalist , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S .C. § l 153(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 satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria , as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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 immigrant visas available to individuals 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 pet1t10ner can demonstrate 
international 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 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 worked for several television stations inl I includin~ [ I I and 
I I She hosted the weekly programl , J reported on international sporting 
events, and wrote online articles for I IH:er Y ouTube channel features videos of sports tourism (in 
which she visits various international locales and participates in local sports activities). 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she received 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). The Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied seven of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; 
• (ix), High remuneration for services; and 
• (x), Commercial success in the performing arts. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, numbered (iii) and (ix). On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that she also meets four other criteria, numbered (v), (vii), (viii), and (x). The 
Petitioner does not contest the Director's conclusions regarding the criterion numbered (vi), and 
therefore we consider that issue to be abandoned. 1 
1 See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 T&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att:v Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the criteria 
numbered (iii) and (ix). We will discuss the other claimed criteria below. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
The Petitioner asserts that various accomplishments meet this criterion. An official ofl I 
calls the Petitioner "one of the first women inl ~o break through the glass ceiling that exists in sports 
reporting in the country." Setting aside the lack of documentary support for this assertion, her employer's 
decision to hire her is not an original contribution that the Petitioner made. (We note that promotional 
materials in the record show that, when the Petitioner joined.__ ______ _.two of the three existing 
co-hosts were female.) 
The Petitioner asserts that she was the first female journalist hired byl I i~ I but an 
executive with that company indicates that the network hired the Petitioner "when [the network] 
launched." The Petitioner has not established that being part of a new network's initial hiring wave is an 
original contribution, nor has the Petitioner explained how it is of major significance. Media coverage of 
the hiring, documented in the record, did not highlight the Petitioner's gender as a significant part of the 
story. 
Letters from employers and others contain general praise for the Petitioner, but do not identify specific 
original contributions or explain their significance. For instance, the sports and news manager at 
I I states that the Petitioner "is truly a star of I I in I I as she not only has 
incredible journalistic skills, which allow her to write complex journalistic pieces, but also the charisma 
and on-camera personality that attracts the public and keeps audiences engaged." General assessments 
of the Petitioner's skill and appeal to audiences do not satisfy the requirements spelled out in the 
regulations. 
The Petitioner's creation of a television documentary,! constitutes an original 
contribution, but the burden is on the Petitioner to establish its ma/or significance. The Petitioner asserts 
thatl ~s "the first documentary I in the history of1 I television." 
This statement attests to the film's originality, but does not establish its major significance. AD 
executive calls the documentary "very successful," but does not elaborate. The record does not establish 
the documentary's performance relative to similar programming. 
The Petitioner has documented an active and high-level career in sports journalism, but has not established 
the major significance of her original contributions. 
Evidence o_f the display of the alien's work in the.field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
As evidence of qualifying display, the Petitioner submits screen captures from her television appearances; 
an appearance on a talk show; and dancing in a competitive television program. Talk show appearances 
and competitive dancing do not amount to work in the Petitioner's field. 
3 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's television appearances as a reporter did not constitute display 
in artistic exhibitions or showcases. On appeal, the Petitioner observes that the words "display" and "art" 
have broad meanings, and the Petitioner asserts that television is an "artistic medium" and that 
'journalism ... [is] usually included within the Liberal Arts curriculum." It does not follow, however, 
that the phrase "artistic exhibitions or showcases" applies broadly to disciplines outside the fine arts, or 
reasonably applies to every usage of the term "art." Television programming can be artistic in nature, but 
not every television broadcast is an artistic exhibition or showcase. For example, a news broadcast may 
include footage from a security camera, which was not captured with any artistic intent. 
The purpose of sports journalism is not to provide an "artistic exhibition or showcase" to "display" the 
work of reporters, but rather to inform viewers about sports-related matters. The role of a sports journalist 
is to serve as a conduit to provide that information, even if some reporters have distinctive traits such as 
an animated style of delivery, or clever turns of phrase. 
The Petitioner has not established that her career involves display of her work at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
Evidence that the alien has performed 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 asserts that she meets this criterion because she was the anchor fo~ I 
a weekly srorts Pf ogram od I The Petitioner states that this program was "the leading sports 
show" on s "second largest network." The record corroborates I ts distilguished I 
reputation as a major television network. The network's sports and news manager calls 
I I "one of the most important! I television sports shows." Letters written specifically 
to support the petition refer to the Petitioner as the anchor or central figure of the show, but media 
coverage of the Petitioner's hiring does not share this characterization, indicating instead that she 
joined a team of three other reporters who were already working on the show. 
~---~Is production director asserts that the Petitioner's role "was key to the huge success of the 
show and our impressive ratings," but the Petitioner does not provide sufficient data to show that the 
show's ratings improved after she joined the show ( or declined after she left). Without such data, the 
record does not objectively support the claim that the Petitioner was responsible for the show's ratings 
performance. 
An official ofl I states that the Petitioner "writes a weekly column covering sports 
tourism" forl I This official praises the Petitioner's "excellent reporting" and "unique, 
uplifting wa of communicatin with the audience," but does not explain how her role as a columnist 
is critical to as an organization. The record does not show how many writers work 
for .__ __ .ut promotional materials identify more than 20 bloggers (not including the Petitioner). 
The materials do not specify the distinction, if any, between columnists and bloggers. The record 
establishes the distinguished reputation o±1 I but it does not show that the Petitioner 
performed in a critical role for the organization. 
As shown above, the record establishes the Petitioner's involvement in high-profile sports journalism, 
but does not show that her role was critical for the publishers or broadcasters that employed her. 
4 
Evidence of commercial successes in the peiforming arts, as shown by box office receipts 
or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x) 
The Petitioner asserts that the wording of the regulatory criterion is becoming "obsolete in our current 
digital world," and that television ratings should be considered. A petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence when the standard regulatory criteria do not readily apply to an individual's occupation. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4). Here, the Petitioner does not specifically invoke the "comparable evidence" 
provision. The regulations, in their published form, are binding in this proceeding; the Petitioner has no 
right or privilege to declare those regulations "obsolete" and substitute a new standard more favorable to 
her interests. 
Ratings are a relevant consideration when dealing with television personalities, and received some degree 
of discussion above, but further analysis of ratings would be more appropriate in the context of a final 
merits determination once a given individual has met the initial evidentiary threshold at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Here, the Petitioner has not cleared that threshold, and therefore a more detailed discussion 
of television ratings would not affect the outcome of the proceeding. 
The Petitioner has not met the regulatory requirements under this 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 lesser 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 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 for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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). By the same reasoning, employment with a major television network is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility. Here, the Petitioner has established past employment with 
prominent networks, but has not provided a sufficient basis for comparison to show that she is among 
the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(~ 
of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). We note that the record indicates that the Petitioner leftl....,....__J 
I I in 2018, and does not indicate that she has maintained a high profile since that time, as 
required to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim as contemplated by 
Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
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. 
5