dismissed EB-1A Case: Television Host

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 22099821 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 13, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a television host, 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 met the initial evidence requirement for this classification through 
evidence of either a one-time achievement or that he meets three of the alternative evidentiary criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that he fulfills at least 
three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 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)(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 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) 
( 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 
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). In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner 
fulfilled only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, participation as a judge of others' work at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets six additional 
evidentiary criteria, which will be discussed below. 
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) 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate his prizes or awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 Relevant considerations regarding 
whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field including, but are not 
limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international significance of 
the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well as any 
limitations on competitors. 2 
Here, the Petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he won Telenedelya magazine's 
prize (2014) based on having received the most votes in the 
category.3 He also provided the rules associated with this magazine's 
prize, which state that individuals "can take part in the voting using SMS-messages or the site tv.ua/tz," 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, Appendices, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
2 Id. 
3 The Petitioner's evidence reflects that the I I prize was awarded to individuals in 12 different categories. 
2 
that "[aa ]ny Ukrainian TV viewer can take part in the voting," and that winners are selected based on 
votes received from "the largest number of viewers." 
In addition, the Petitioner presented evidence showing that he was recognized as I ______ 
in 2019 by Cosmopolitan magazine's Ukrainian edition. The rules for this award indicate: "You can 
vote one vote from each social media account or from one mailbox. You can vote for just one nominee 
in each of the nine categories. Voting for the nominees will last from March 1, 2019 to May 21, 2019 
inclusively on the website cosmo.com.ua. Only ... citizens of Ukraine residing in the territory of 
Ukraine have the right to take part in the voting." 
The Petitioner further provided promotional information about his awards from the aforementioned 
magazines' websites and some media coverage relatinJ to the announcement of the winners, but this 
documentation does not indicate the significance of his I prize and award 
in the field of endeavor. 4 The record does not include evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's 
awards were recognized by the field in general rather than mainly limited to the readership of 
Telenedelya or the Ukrainian edition of Cosmopolitan. Nor does the evidence show that the limited 
media coverage relating to the Petitioner's two awards rises to the level of national or international 
recognition. Without further evidence regarding their national or international significance in his field, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his awards are nationally or internationally recognized awards 
for excellence in the field. 
The Petitioner also claimed five awards won by the reality television show I I as 
evidence for this criterion. 5 To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he was the 
recipient of prizes or awards. 6 The documentation announcing the winners of the I I and 
I I awards, however, does not identify the Petitioner as their recipient. See Hristov v. Roark, 
2011 WL 4711885 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (finding that a producer and star actor was not the recipient of 
awards for Best Short Film and Best Cinematography since he was not named on either award). 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory 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) 
The Petitioner submitted articles about him in Cosmopolitan (Ukrainian edition), National Geographic 
(Russian edition), Otdokhni!, Hello! (Russian edition), GQ (Russian edition), Mediananny.com, 
4 Cf, Strategati, LLC v Sessions, 2019 WL 2330181 (S.D. CA 2019) (upholding finding that "Woman of the Year" award 
eliminated men from consideration and thus did not "measure th i i n r' n ing or selection from the whole field.") 
5 The record indicates that the Petitioner wwas a co-host of the television show. This show received 
Russian Academy of TelevisionL__J awards in 2014, 2016 and 2018 for and 
National Council ofT elevision and Radio Broadcasting ofUkrainel I awards in 2015 and 2016 for ___ 
6 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, Appendices, supra, at F.2 (stating that the description of this type of evidence in the 
regulation indicates that the focus should be on the person's receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to his or her 
employer's receipt of the awards or prizes.) 
3 
Telenedelya, www.gazeta.ru, https :// I istochnik. ru, www footboom. ru, www.stb.ua, and 
ua.tribuna.com, but the authors of the articles in Cosmopolitan, National Geographic, Otdokhni!, 
Mediananny.com, Telenedelya, wwwfootboom.ru, and www.stb.ua were not identified as required by 
this criterion. In addition, the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) 
included screenshots from similarweb.com regarding website traffic for the aforementioned 
publications' websites. For example, the similarweb.com "Traffic Overview" for Cosmopolitan 
(Ukrainian edition) listed 'Total Visits" at "660.25K," a "Global Rank" of "106,481," a "Country 
Rank" of "2,126," and a "Category Rank" of "339." The Petitioner, however, did not establish the 
significance of these statistics, showing that the aforementioned magazines and websites represent 
major trade publications or other major media. 7 
Also in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner 
provided 
two additional articles about him in 
L'Officiel I 12021) and Privat Space 2020), but both articles were published after 
he filed the petition. Eligibility, however, must be demonstrated at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
Given the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, 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 satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. 8 For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
In his appeal brief, the Petitioner argues that he "has created and produced a substantial number of TV 
shows, which were broadcasted on the major Russian TV channel I I and have garnered a large 
number of reviews, comments by Petitioner's colleagues - TV presenters, as can be seen from their 
written letters-testimonies." 9 As discussed below, these letters do not offer sufficiently detailed 
information, nor does the record include adequate corroborating documentation, to demonstrate the 
nature of specific "original" contributions that the Petitioner has made to the field that have been 
considered to be of major significance. 
For example, in his two letters dated 2020 and 2021, I general 
manager at __________ in indicated that the Petitioner has worked for the 
I I channel "as TV host/presenter of our most popular! lshow ... si smce 
2013 .... I I became the pivotal part of our programming ... Our channel has won 
numerous awards for I I with [the Petitioner] as host of the show and a creative 
7 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, Appendices, supra, at F.2 (indicating that evidence of published material in professional or 
major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line or in print) is 
high compared to other circulation statistics). 
8 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, Appendices, supra, at F.2. 
9 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
visionary behind its lasting success." 10 While these awards recognized the popularity and creativity 
of the shshow, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's original work 
has influenced the entertainment industry to the extent that it is of major significance in the field. 
..c==J further stated that the Petitioner "created and produced his own TV shows such as I I 
(2014), I (2016-2019), and I I Additionally, I I 
claimed that these shows "became very popular among viewers in Russia and CIS" (Commonwealth 
oflndependent States), but the record does not include sufficient information or supporting evidence 
demonstrating that the Petitioner's part in these projects has affected his industry in a substantial way 
or otherwise constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Likewise, I I director of production studio in 11 
asserted that "thanks to [the Petitioner's] skills, talent, and expertise, show 
consistently received very high ratings and was thus able to achieve tremendous success and popularity 
in Ukraine, in the CIS, in Israel etc." She also claimed that "[a]ll seasons of the show in which [the 
Petitioner] was a co-host were hugely popular and were viewed by millions and millions of people," 
but the record does not include published television rankings or other statistical evidence to 
corroborate her statements. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that his work onl I 
rises to the level of a contribution of major significance in the field. 
In addition I producer of indicated 
that the Petitioner worked as the host of that show "three full seasons starting in 2016, and that his 
contributions to the success of the show were significant." I !explained that the 
Petitioner "joined the original host of the show who was the face of the fofor six 
years,I I It was during that season that the show - which was already tremendously 
popular but had reached a bit of a plateau by its seventh year - enjoyed a great spike in popularity and 
ratings, a spike that continued all throughout the time when [the Petitioner] was a host onl I 
The record, however, does not include sufficient information or evidence to show that the Petitioner's 
hosting of constitutes a contribution of major significance in the 
entertainment field. 
FurthermoreJ administrative director for ______ in Ukraine, asserted that the 
Petitioner "is an extraordinaril= talented TV presenter on the most popular TV shows including I I I 11 11 I I and others. He is also a huge social 
media influencer with almost 2 million followers on Instagram .... " 12 Whilel I further 
described the Petitioner as "a very talented and unique TV presenter," she did not offer specific 
examples of how his work has risen to the level of a contribution of major significance in his field. 
10 As previously noted, the record includes documentation indicating that received Russian Academy 
of Television awards in 2014, 2016 and 2018 for and National Council of 
Television and Radio Broadcasting ofUkrainel I awards in 2015 and 2016 for I I 
11 According to letter, is the sole holder of exclusive intellectual property rights" 
for thel I show. 
12 The Petitioner provided a screenshot of his Instagram profile reflecting that he has 1. 9 million followers. While this 
number of followers shows the Petitioner's level of popularity on social media, it does represent an original artistic or 
business-related contribution of major significance in the field. 
5 
Letters that specifically articulate how the individual's contributions are of major significance to the 
field and his impact on subsequent work add value. Letters that lack specifics and simply use 
hyperbolic language do not add value and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form 
the basis for meeting this criterion. 13 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
The record also includes promotional information from !website forl I ________ I I and I I Additionally, the 
Petitioner provided a Y ouTube screenshot for I and nine feedback comments posted at 
otzyvru.com. Furthermore, he presented YouTube screenshots from 2021 indicating that his number 
of subscribers increased from 166,000 (May 2021) to 217,000 (November 2021), but this subscription 
information post-dates the filing of the petition. Eligibility, however, must be demonstrated at the 
time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Regardless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
availability of his shows onl land subscribership to his programs on YouTube signify 
original contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that because he has 1.8 million Instagram followers and contracts 
with international brands such as I II II I andl "it is undoubtedly 
clear that the Petitioner's work significantly impacted and influenced the field of television." While 
the record indicates that the Petitioner has a achieved a level of popularity in the television industry 
and that he has received endorsement deals, he has not demonstrated that his original work rises to the 
level of artistic or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. Without sufficient 
information and evidence demonstrating that his work constitutes original contributions of major 
significance in the field, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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) 
To qualify under this criterion, a petitioner must show that they played a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment, and that that organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation. When evaluating whether a role is leading, we look at whether the evidence establishes 
that the person is or was a leader within the organization, or a department or division thereof A title, 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish that a role is or was leading. For a critical role, 
we look at whether the evidence establishes that the person has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or those of a 
division or department of the organization or establishment. 14 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that he has performed in a leading or critical role forl I 
I 11 thel I the Ukrainian Soccer ClubLJ 
I II land the showl I 
With regard to his work for ________ the Petitioner rovided two letters from __ 
I I the company's director. In her April 2021 letter, indicated that the Petitioner 
"worked withl las a leading co-host of our show I from 
13 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, Appendices, supra, at F.2. 
14 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, Appendices, supra, at F.2. 
6 
August 2011 to November 2013, then in 2015, and then again from 2019 to March 2020. He was the 
second male co-host in the history of the show .... He was a leading host throughout the entire 
duration of his work with us." She further stated: "When the production team was shooting the show, 
[the Petitioner] often improvised, creating memorable moments that became the heart of our show .... 
He worked very hard, and was an integral part of our team's 'brain' during brainstorming sessions 
about next episodes." Whilel !discussed the Petitioner's role as co-host for thel I 
I I show, she did not provide specific, detailed information demonstrating the nature of the 
Petitioner's leading or critical role for 15 Furthermore, the record lacks 
evidence showing that ________ has a distinguished reputation. 
Likewise, regarding the Petitioner's involvement with the September 
2020 and April 2021 letters froml I the company's general manager, also discussed 
the Petitioner's work as TV host/presenter ofl I In his September 2020 letterO 
I I asserted that the Petitioner was the "creative visionary behind its lasting success" and that 
he "set the tone for the success of the show on our channel for years to come." Additionally, in his 
April 2021 letter, lstated that "[i]n his role of a TV host, [the Petitioner] always used his 
one-of-a-kind artistic talent, memorable sense of humor, and his unique way of making audiences 
engaged .... Inl I show, his influence was so strong that even after he left the show 
temporarily ... there was a very positive 'leftover effect."' Whilel I further contended 
that the Petitioner has "contributed significantly to increasing our channel's brand recognition and our 
profits," the record does not include television ratings data or company financial statements to 
corroborate his claim. I H also stated that the Petitioner "created and produced his own TV 
shows such as I (2014 ), I I (2016-2019), and I I The 
Petitioner, however, has not shown that his role as co-host or producer for the aforementioned 
television shows constitutes a leading or critical role forl Nor has the 
Petitioner presented evidence showing that the company has a distinguished reputation. 
The record also includes October 2020 and April 2021 letters from I I the mayor of 
the I I explaining how the Petitioner has assisted "in the development and 
implementation of the City strategy" on youth programs. In his October 2020 letter,I I 
indicated that the Petitioner was invited "to be a representative of I youth and the liaison 
between our young city residents and municipal authorities." Furthermore, in his April 2021 letter, 
I I stated that the Petitioner "conducts regular meetings with the city's youth to listen and 
to deliver to us their concerns - and to suggest proposals for the City Council to work on in relation 
to the needs of the city's youth." I I also asserted that, with respect to the cit 's tourism 
and recreation programs, the Petitioner "filmed a video about the city of I called 
I I in which he showed the sites of the city, including the coast ofth __ 
Thanks to [the Petitioner's] video, we were able to attract a lot of tourists from different parts of 
Ukraine and even from foreign countries." I I however, did not provide specific data, 
nor does the record include other corroborating evidence, showing that the Petitioner's video affected 
the number of tourists visiting the city. Whilel I indicated that the Petitioner has 
contributed to the city's youth programs, tourism, and cultural life, his statements are not sufficient to 
15 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, Appendices, supra, at F.2 (stating that letters from individuals with personal knowledge of 
the significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful in making this determination as long as 
the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for the organization or 
establishment was leading or critical). 
7 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's role forl lwas leading or critical. For example, the record 
does not show that the Petitioner served in a leadership position or that he was responsible for the 
successes or outcomes of the city's operations or financial standing. In addition, the Petitioner has not 
offered evidence indicating that the I has a distinguished reputation. 
With respect to the Petitioner's role for the Ukrainian Soccer Clubl I he submitted a 
letter signed but the individual who authored the letter is not identified. 
The letter stated that the Petitioner has supported the team by attending matches, visiting training 
camp, bonding with players, mentioning the club during a I I episode, participating in 
charity auctions, and sending encouraging video messages to the team. Here, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how serving in the aforementioned roles shows his leading position forj I nor 
did he establish how his role resulted in critical or essential outcomes for the team. 
Additionally, the Petitioner's response to the Director's RFE included a letter from 
head of marketing atj I stating that in "the winter of 2020, [the Petitioner] became the 
face of our brand in Ukraine and the celebrity brand ambassador for th brand .... So far, [the 
Petitioner] has starred in commercials for our winter 2020, spring 2021 and summer 2021 collections." 
The Petitioner's role forl I however, post-dates the filing of the petition. Eligibility, 
however, must be demonstrated at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
Regarding the Petitioner's role for the I I television show, he provided a 
letter from the show's producer, I discussing his work as the show's host. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), however, requires an individual to perform in a leading or 
critical role for "organizations or establishments." Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines 
"organization" as an "association, society" or "an administrative and functional structure (such as a 
business or a political party)." It defines "establishment" as "something established" (such as a 
"church, a permanent civil or military organization, a place of business or residence with its 
furnishings and staff, a public or private institution"). See Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition 
of both "organization" and "establishment." The Petitioner has not established that a television show 
constitutes an organization or establishment. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that I I I I has a distinguished reputation. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
This criterion focuses on volume of sales and box office receipts as a measure of the individual's 
commercial success in the performing arts. Therefore, the mere fact that an individual has performed 
in theatrical, motion picture, or television productions would be insufficient, in and of itself, to meet 
this criterion. The evidence must show that the volume of sales and box office receipts reflect the 
individual's s commercial success relative to others involved in similar pursuits in the performing 
arts. 16 
16 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, Appendices, supra, at F.2. 
8 
The Petitioner presented the April 2021 letter from I I of ________ 
production studio as evidence for this criterion. She indicated that her company "owes the tremendous 
commercial success of ourl I TV production I I to [ the Petitioner's] contributions, 
and that thanks to his original talent and expertise ... I I became one of the topl I 
shows in Ukraine and Russia of all times, based on viewership and brand recognition." The record, 
however, does not include independent television ratings reports, objective viewership data for 
programming, or over evidence to corroborate! lclaim. 17 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a separate statement froml !asserting that her company 
paid the Petitioner "$11,000.00 (eleven thousand) U.S. dollars for 1 (one episode) of the TV show 
from #412 to #430, the total number of which is 19 (e isodes ," but this compensation report reflects 
the Petitioner's remuneration for filming ______ episodes rather than the commercial 
success of his work in the performing arts as shown by "sales" or "receipts." He also provided 
Y ouTube screenshots for various 2011-2013 episodes of I I ( seasons two through 
seven) showing "views" for each episode ranging from 334,957 to 2,391,647. The Petitioner, 
however, has not demonstrated that these "views" of the show on You Tube translate to his commercial 
successes relative to others in the industry in the form of "sales" or "receipts." The evidence presented 
here is insufficient to establish that the volume of sales or television revenue forl I 
reflects the Petitioner's commercial successes relative to others involved in similar pursuits in the 
performing arts. Accordingly, he has not established that he satisfies this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies the criteria relating to awards, published material, 
original contributions, leading or critical role, or commercial successes. Although the Petitioner 
claims eligibility for an additional criterion on appeal, relating to high salary at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix), we need not reach this additional ground because the Petitioner cannot fulfill the 
initial evidentiary requirement of three 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. 18 
Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not 
support a finding that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the 
classification sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for 
individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward 
the top. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a 
17 The September 2020 and April 2021 letters from I ofl I indicated that 
I I show was broadcast on his company's channel. While I asserted that the Petitioner has 
"contributed significantly to increasing our channel's brand recognition and our profits," the record does not include 
television ratings data or company financial statements to corroborate his claim. 
18 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
9 
"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 )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and that he 
is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
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