dismissed EB-1A Case: Talent Acquisition

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7863037 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 12, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a vice president of talent acqms1t1on, 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 that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria for this 
classification, 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. 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)(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 is currently employed as the Vice President of Talent Acquisition for~I ----~ 
I ,!which operates the 1 t chain of~-------~stores in the United States. He 
reviousl worked in employee learning and development and talent acquisition roles for German 
L-.....---------~·n~b~o=th~th 4 e United States and Ireland. Earlier in his career, the Petitioner worked 
for~ ________ __,, an Irish store chain. 
A. 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 found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary 
criteria. Specifically, the Director determined that he provided evidence of his leading or critical roles 
for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation, and evidence that he has 
commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in 
his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and (ix). 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner Jet these tw} criteria. The Petitioner provided detailed 
letters from his current and former managers at,__ ___ _,and within thO organization sufficient 
to establish that he held critical roles with these companies. In addition, the Petitioner submitted 
documentation of his past earnings along with comparative wage information from several reliable 
sources sufficient to demonstrate that he received significantly high remuneration in comparison to 
others in his occupation who work in the same geographic area. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets three additional evidentiary criteria, as discussed below. 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has not established that he 
meets three 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) 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the Petitioner's 
awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish 
2 
every element of this criterion. 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. 1 
The Petitioner provided evidence regarding the following awards, which he highlights on appeal: 
• 2019 I I HR Retailer Leader of the Year ( awarded to the Petitioner) 
• 2015 .__ ___________________ ___. National Training Award for 
Lea
1
ing I Development Organization of the Year ( awarded tOireland) 
• 2015 National Training Award for Best Leaming & Development Organization (Large 
500+
1 
(aw~arded toOireland) 
• 2015 National Training Award for Best Graduate/Internship Program (awarded toD 
Irelan&_. 
• 2013 l__JNational Training Award for Leaming and Development Organization of the Year 
( awarded to D Ireland) 
• 2013 D Nationf11-I1iaining Award for Best Leading & Development Organization (Large 
500+) (awarded tol_Jireland) 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that his 
I I HR Retail Leader of the Year Award is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award 
for excellence because it is "limited to members of that association and participants of that 
conference," and because the record otherwise lacked sufficient evidence demonstrating the national 
or international recognition associated with the award. With respect to the fivec=J National Training 
A wards received by D Ireland, the Director emphasized that the Petitioner was not the direct 
recipient of these awards, and therefore the evidence did not satisfy the plain language of the 
regulation. 
Regarding the Petitioner's receipt of the 20191 I HR Retail Leader of the Year award, the record 
contains his award certificate a hotograph of him holdinl the a
1
ard, and a letter froml I 
managing director of , the or anizer of the HR Retail Conference at which the 
Petitioner received the award. '-----~ states that there were "dozens" of nominations for the 
award, received from "around the Retail Globe," and that nominations were open to "any Indust{ HRI 
professional within the US and beyond." The Petitioner also provided a screenshot from the 
HR Retail website which indicates that the "first annual Retail HR Awards" were held in 2019. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that thel I HR Retail Leader of the Year award was not in fact 
"limited to members of that association and participants of that conference." We agree with the 
Petitioner that the evidence does not support the Director's finding that such limitations were placed 
on this award. The Petitioner also strongly objects to the Director's observation, apparently made in 
reference to his I I HR award, that "some of the evidence submitted did not contain source 
attribution and appeared self-manufactured." We agree and will withdraw the Director's statement, 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 
as the Director did not identify the referenced evidence and we have not identified any evidence 
submitted with respect to this award that appears to be "self-manufactured." 
The Petitioner further states that the Director erred by observing that he failed to submit "probative 
evidence of major trade publications or other major media conveying that the I IHR Retail] 
awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor." Here, 
while we agree with the Petitioner that the regulations do not specifically require that an individual's 
awards be announced in major trade publications or in other major media, the Petitioner is required to 
establish the national or international significance and reclgnitiol associated with the award. The 
Petitioner did not submit evidence demonstrating that the HR Retail Leader award, which 
appears to have been awarded for the first time in 2019, is rdgardel as a nationally or internationally 
recognized award for excellence in his field. The fact that th HR Retail conference organizers 
accepted nominations on a national or international basis for its inaugural awards does not establish 
that the award itself has a reputation as a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence. 
Therefore, we agree with the Director that the record does not establish the level of recognition 
associated with hicl I HR Retail Leader award or whether it is recognized beyond the industry 
conference in which it was given. 
For the remaining awards listed by the Petitioner, we agree with the Director that they were awarded 
to his former employer,~Ireland, not to the Petitioner himself. According to the plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that an individual petitioner is 
the actual recipient of the prizes or the awards. 2 On appeal, the Petitioner through counsel, 
emphasizes that he "submitted evidence that his programs and initiatives led D Ireland to receive 
several nationally recognized awards at thel I and states 
that the Director took an "overly narrow approach" to evaluating this criterion. 
While the Petitioner submitted letters from his formerl7Ireland managers explaining how he was 
irntrumental to the company's receipt of the listedLJNalional Aw:ids, it rlmains that he is not the 
recipient of any~e awards. The Petitioner also provided a letter fro CEol I 
who notes thatl_Jireland's award submissions were "hand crafted by [the Petitioner] himself' and 
that "the endeavors behind the submissions which lead to D's successes were conceptualized, 
created, design and delivered by [th~tioner]." This letter frol)l the awarding entity was written 
years after the award was granted tol_J Ireland and it does not indicate that the awarding entity's 
intent was to recognize the Petitioner individually for his work. The Petitioner did not, for example, 
provide evidence that he received~individual recognition from Ocontemporaneous with the 
granting of the company awards toLJ Ireland. . 
The Petitioner, through counsel, also maintains that he distinguished the facts of this case from those 
in Hristov v. Roark, 09-CV 2731, 2011 WL 4711885 (E.D.N.Y, Sept. 30, 2011), which the Director 
cited in support of his finding that the Petitioner must demonstrate that he is the named award recipient 
in order to be officially credited with an award. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that here, "multiple 
sources have directly attributed Os receipt of these awards to the work of [the Petitioner]," while 
the petitioner in Hristov did not present similar evidence. The fact that the individual petitioner in 
2 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra at 6 (stating that for this criterion, the focus should be on 
an individual's receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to his or her employer's receipt of the awards or prizes). 
4 
Hristov did not submit similar testimonial evidence from his employer or the awarding entity does not 
support a conclusion that USCIS will generally accept such evidence in lieu of evidence that satisfies 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Moreover, the Director properly 
determined that the Petitioner's evidence did not satisfy the plain language of the regulation, and did 
not solely rely on Hristov as suggested on appeal. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of this criterion. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for 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) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the 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. 3 Relevant factors that may lead to a conclusion that an 
individual's membership in the association was not based on outstanding achievements in the field 
may include instances where an individual's membership was based solely on a level of education or 
years of experience in a particular field or based on the payment of a fee or subscription to an 
association's publication. 4 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion based on his Fellow membership in thel'---------' 
which is described as "the non-profit professional body 
representing members concerned with .__ ___________________ __. 
We note that the Director determined, in part, that the Beneficiary's "certification as a fellow o~._ _ __, 
is a "certification by a professional body" rather than a "membrshij in an association." We disagree 
with this characterization and agree with the Petitioner that the qualifies as an association in the 
Petitioner's field that offers various levels membership, rather than certifications. However, for the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the record does not establish that theD 
requires Fellow members to demonstrate outstanding achievements as an essential condition for 
membership, nor does it establish that applications for Fellow membership are judged by recognized 
national or international experts in the field. 
The Petitioner provided a letter frorn0 CEO I l who states that the Petitioner "met 
the requirements for classification as a Fellow." She explains that the Fellow mem
1
ershi~ level 
I lis the highest level of membership and has been awarded to fewer than 50 of the s 1500 
members. She also describes the criteria for Fellow membership as follows: 
~-~I is awarded to professionals who hold a qualification at Level 9 on the National 
Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) or higher in Leaming & Development or a related 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6 (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). 
4 Id. at 7. 
5 
discipline. This is a qualification equivalent to a Master's Degree or Post-Graduate 
Diploma. Alternatively, a I I may possess at least 10 years of professional 
experience at a senior level providing strategic contribution in a Leaming & 
Development or related discipline role. To qualify as anl I an individual must 
also demonstrate at least 10 days per year of documented continuous development for 
the most recent five years . 
.__ ____ _____.!states that "thel lmakes final decisions on membership and is made up of 
nationally and internationally recognized field experts who are directly (esp
1
nsible for awarding a 
I ~ Her letter was accompanied by a "Membership Criteria" chart on letterhead, which lists 
the same criteria for the Fellow membership grade that she has outlined in her statement. 
In response to a request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a copy of0' s articles of 
association. This document lists the requirements for each type of membership, but the requirements 
listed for admission as a "Fellow" member are not the same as those described inl Is 
letter. Rather, the articles of association state that a person may be admitted as a fellow if that person 
"a. possesses acceptable educational qualifications at NFQ level 9 ( or equivalent) or higher in learning 
and development or in a related discipline" and "b. has made an outstanding contribution to the theory, 
practice, organization or administration of training." At the same time, the Petitioner re-submitted 
I Is letter and the above referenced "Membership Criteria" chart, without explaintg w~y 
those documents describe different Fellow membership requirements than those outlined in th s 
articles of association. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). As a result of this unresolved inconsistency, the submitted evidence does not clearly describe 
the Fellow membership requirements fore=] and therefore does not demonstrate that membership 
requires outstanding achievements. 
The Petitioner must also establish that prospective Fellow members' achievements are judged~ 
recognized national or international elperts r the field as a condition of membership. As noted, LJ I I states in her letter that Fellow members must meet minimum educational 
requirements, or, alternatively, meet minimum work experience requirements, with theD Council 
making "final determinations." However, there was no indication that members are required to 
demonstrate "outstanding achievements" in order to receive approval of an application for Fellow 
membership. Rather, based od l's statement, admission to this membership class appears 
to be based primarily on an individual's educational qualifications or on the number of years of 
experience they have in the employee learning and development or a related field. 5 
Thec=]s articles of association indicate that fellow members must meet minimum educational 
requirements and establish that they have made an "outstanding contribution." The term "outstanding 
contribution" is not defined in the articles of association, nor do the articles mention the role of the 
LJcouncil in evaluating applicants' achievements. By contrast, the articles of association state the 
following with respect to "Honorary Members": 
5 We note that the record does not contain information about the Petitioner's own educational background. evidence of his 
educational credentials, or a copy of his resume detailing his full employment history. 
6 
Persons may be admitted as Honorary Members or as Honorary Fellows of the Institute 
if the Council by a majority vote at a meeting if the Council certifies to the Directors 
that in the opinion of the Council they are persons of outstanding and exceptional 
distinction and are persons to whom the Institute wishes to give public recognition. 
If a regular Fellow member must also un
1
ergo j similar review by th0Council, it is unclear why 
such process would not be outlined in the s articles. We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion 
that there are fewer than 50 Fellow members of thec=] but this fact alone is insufficient to establish 
that his membership satisfies all elements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). As a result 
of the lack of clear and consistent information regarding both the requirements for Fellow membership 
and the review process, the Petitioner has not established that his Fellow membership iQsatisfies 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they have made original contributions 
of major significance in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that their contributions have 
been widely implemented in the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have 
otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner states on appeal that previously submitted evidence establishes that he "was 
instrumental in redesigning the Bachelor of Business in Retail Management at the I I Business 
School which had a significant impact on the industry as a whole, by providing the next generation of 
leadersl O O , lwith a solid foundation to advance the I I I lretail field." C: ;; 
The Petitioner rovided letters from I l former CEO ofl I Business School 
□' and the program manager for the referenced retail managemer degye at 
s letter provides background on the degree, noting that was 
commissioned b Ireland in 2007 to design the six-semester degree program, which had its first 
cohort of students graduate in 2010. The program, which accommodates 40 trainees in each cohort, 
is split 50-50 between academic coursework and work-based training withl7.Ireiand.l I 
notes that the retail management degree program is run in collaboration with[_J embedded in the 
workplace, and designed to meet the learning needs ofLJwhile upholding the quality and standards 
of a ro ram. Specifically, she notes that the program is a 
blending learning solution accredited to a,__ ___ _,(equivalent to a U.S. associates degree) which 
encompasses both classroom theory and on-the-job training. 
With ysplt to the Petitioner's role in the program,! I states that when the Petitioner 
joined Ireland in 2010, he "became the driving force behind taking the program to the next level 
in terms of its reputation and relevance" and worked to ensure "that the learning objectives were met 
in a more efficient and~ focused way." .__ _____ ,,.....describes several ways in which the 
Petitioner "added value" to the existing degree program, such as starting students with a work-based 
working module, introducing new modules in distribution and supply chain, adapting to different 
7 
learning styles, and reducing the overall length of the program.I I notes that the program 
quickly grew in popularity with up to 1000 applicants for 40 available places. 
However, the Petitioner has not established how his "value-added" changes to an existing degree 
pro~ram 
1
can be considered an "original contribution" to the field. Even if the Petitioner established 
that retail management program was truly unique among Ireland'sl < < lprograms, the 
record does not establish that the Petitioner himself developed and implemented the concept or that he 
fundamentally changed its structure or content to the extent that his improvements alone could be 
considered an original contribution. Rather, the evidence indicates that at the time he joinedc=J 
Ireland, it was a three-year old program that had already been accredited by Irish educational 
authorities. 
In addition, the record does not demonstrate how the~ retail management deree program has 
influenced the Petitioner's field to a degree that rises to one of "major significance." I 
stated that "the "Earn as You learn" or D model "has been acknowledged as a model of best 
practice by a large range of stakeholders" and "is cited as a reference point by Irish Government 
agencies in relation to the national initiative as articulated in the Action Plan to Expand Apprenticeship 
and Traineeship 2016-2000." He further asserts that the program was "endorsed by a range of 
influential stakeholder groups such as employers, industry representative bodies, career guidance 
counselors and the media." However, these statements are not supported by any corroborating 
evidence from the referenced government stakeholders, media, employers, or others indicating that 
thd lretail management degree is accepted as a best practice in the retail industry or in the 
Irish higher education system, as implied byl ts statement. 
.__ ___ ___,I states "[the Petitioner's] original concept was of major significance in the field," noting 
that U.K. retail chain has since offered a similar program to its store personnel in partnership 
with the University of We acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted an abstract of an 
article titled ' 
'------------------,,---,--------' ' which was published in Human Resource 
Management International Digest in 2014. The Petitioner did not provide a full copy of the 
article and there is no mention of the.__ _____ __, degree program or its influence on these other 
I I retailers in the submitted abstract. 
Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance in the field 
and his impact on subsequent work add value. On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use 
hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form 
the basis for meeting this criterion. 6 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Ge,d., 74! F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). While the letters 
indicate that the Petitioner contributed to th retail management degree program offered b~ I 
they are not supported by sufficient corroborating evidence to demonstrate the significance or amount 
of attention and interest the "re-designed"C=1iegree program has garnered from the greater field. 
In addition to the above-referenced article abstract, the Petitioner submitted an excerpt from a 2011 
publication titled Education Reference Guide, which features a forward from the Irish Minister for 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
8 
Education and Skills. It includes a full-page advertisement for the0 retail management degree at 
c=J. opposite an article titled 1 I which describes D Ireland's collaboration 
~c:::Jas "unique in Ireland." The article contains quotes from the Petitioner in his capacity as 
eland's career development manager, and a quote froml f, then chief executive 
, who describes the progffilll-11-s a "pioneering and exciting development." While this evidence 
may demonstrate the novelty ofl_J s retail management degree at the time, it does not establish that 
the program was the Petitioner's original concept or demonstrate that the program made a major 
impact on the retail industry or higher education in Ireland. 
Finally, we note that I O I highlighted in her letter that the Petitioner was invited to speak about 
Os retailn]managlment degree at the 2012 I I 
conference i , noting that his presentation "was very well received by more than 200 leading 
national educators, many of whom applauded his role in the continuance of the program." We 
acknowledge that the invitation was a notable recognition for c=J, retail management degree 
program, and the Petitioner's personal appearance supports statements that he spearheaded program 
when he joinedD Ireland. However, the Petitioner did not establish how his invitation to speak at 
this conference establishes the significant impact or influence of the degree program on the wider 
field, nor does it establish how the Petitioner's presentation impacted the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
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 at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition 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 1-140 immigrant petitions are correctly 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. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affa, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 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. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 
98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
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. 
9 
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 )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
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. 
10