dismissed EB-1A Case: Ultramarathon Running

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-S-F-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB.27.2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an ultramarathon runner. seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(I )(A). 8 U.S. C. 
~ 1153(b )(1 )(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 Fonn 1-140. Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker. concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria. of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal. the Petitioner presents previously submitted documentation and a brief~ contending that 
he satisfies at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(I )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 tield through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability. and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Maller<?[ R-S-F-
The term "extraordinar y 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 two options tor satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204 .5(h)(3 )(i) ~ (x) (including items s uch as award s. 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 tina! 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 . U5'CIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(discus sing 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 "· USCJS, 772 r. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D . Wash. 20 II). This two-step analysis is consi stent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantit y of evid ence alone but by its quality ." as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance. probative value, and credibility. both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true:· lvlaffer olChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 3 76 (AAO 20 I 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an ultramarathon runner who has competed in races in the United States. Because 
he has not indicated or established that he has received a major, intern ationally recognized award, he 
must satisfy at least three ofthe ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(il-(x). In denying the petition , 
the Director found that the Petitioner met only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, aw·ards under 
8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(i) . 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets five additional criteria , discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation qfthe alien ·s receipt (~/lesser nationally or in!ernationally recoJ.?,nized prizes or 
awards.for excellence in thefield l?lendeavor. 8 C.F .R. 9 204.5(h)(3 )(i). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record indicates that he placed 
first in the male category at the 2014 Accordingly. the Petitioner 
demon strated that he satisties this criterion. and we concur with the Director" s finding s for this 
criterion . 
2 
.
Mafler ofR-S-F-
Documentation of' the alien's membership in associations in the .field.fhr which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements l~l their members. as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or/ield•1. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion based on membership with the 
and the The 
record contains a letter from campaign manager, who confirmed that the 
Petitioner participated at the 2010 as part of the 
, the flagship fundraising program for Further, the Petitioner presented screenshots from 
website soliciting that "[i]t doesn't matter if you're an athlete or not in perfect shape· · and 
"[y]ou don't have to finish first, you're already a winner by helping and to save lives not 
someday, but today." In addition. the Petitioner submitted a letter from founder of 
who explained that he stat1cd to educate the public about ultrarunning, provided a 
general overview of ultramarathon running, and indicated the Petitioner's participation in 
ultramarathon events. 
While stated that the Petitioner was part of did not indicate 
that the Petitioner was a member of consistent with the plain language of the criterion. 
Regardless, in order to fulfill this criterion, a petitioner must document membership in associations 
that require outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
Here, the evidence does not indicate the requirements for membership and demonstrate that they 
necessitate outstanding achievements. In addition, the documentation does not show that 
membership is judged by recognized national or international experts. For these reasons, the 
Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in prqfessional or major trade publications or other 11U(jor 
media. relaling to the alien's H'ork in thefieldfor "Yrhich classification is sought. S'uch evidence 
shall include the title. date. and author o/'lhc material. and any necessw}' translation. 8 C.F.R. 
~ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner argues that he provided "[r ]ace reports and results in premier magazines for 
competitive running, and magazine." The record contains 
screenshots from various websites. such as and 
which list the Petitioner as a competitor along with all of the other participants and their finishes. 
However , articles that simply mention or list the Petitioner as one of the runners in a competition 
without a discussion regarding him and his work in the tield do not constitute published material 
about him. Furthermore. the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the websites are professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a screenshot from entitled. · 
While the Petitioner is quoted along with several other runners, the 
article is about how a Florida race began with I 00 runners skydiving out of a plane. Articles that are 
not about a petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See. e.g. Negro-Plumpe 1'. Oki11. 2:07-
3 
.
Matter olR-51-F-
CV -820-ECR-RJJ at * L *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a 
show are not about the actor). Further, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that runnersworld.com is a 
professional or major trade publication or other major medium. For these reasons. the Petitioner did 
not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-relaled 
contributions of' major sign(/icance 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 not only that 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 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. The Petitioner argues that that his '' fundraising and running. placing 
and winning top tier races in the field of ultramarathon running" meets this criterion. 
As discussed under the membership criterion, the Petitioner participated with m 20 10 to 
fundraise for In addition, the Petitioner provided screenshots regarding intention to 
fundraise for at the 2017 Because the Petitioner is seeking 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability as an u1tramarathon runner. he must establish 
that he has made original contributions of major significance in his field. Here. the Petitioner did not 
show how his fundraising in 2010 for is an original contribution of major significance to the 
field of ultramarathon running. The Petitioner, for instance, did not demonstrate that his fundraising 
significantly influenced the general field of ultramarathon running. 
Regarding his competition in races, the Petitioner placed first in the male category at the 2014 
as discussed under the awards criterion. Moreover. the Petitioner otlered a 
screenshot reflecting that in 2014 he was ranked first among Filipino ultramarathon runners, but 
there was only one other Filipino runner. In addition, the Petitioner presented scrcenshots showing 
that he participated in 19 events from 2011 - 2015, during which he placed in the top ten among 
males only one other time: eighth place at the 2012 Further. the 
Petitioner submitted a screenshot from indicating that his grand total from tive 
races placed him sixth out of eight runners for the 2014 The 
Petitioner, however. did not demonstrate how these personal achievements are considered 
contributions of major significance to the field at large. See Visinscaia. 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 
(upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not 
corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). The Petitioner, for example. did not establish how 
his accomplishments have greatly impacted the ultramarathon field. 
Similarly, the record contains reference letters from fellow ultramarathon runners and race directors 
who praise the Petitioner for his athletic ability. For example, stated that the 
Petitioner "has no ego:· "has a nose tor the finish line, .. and has a "'positive attitude.'' Further, 
described the Petitioner as "one of the most positive, compassionate, determined. humble. and 
hardworking athletes I had the privilege of meeting." ln addition. indicated that the 
4 
.
Matter l~{ R-S-F-
Petitioner "is a natural ultrarunner. extremely well-trained and intelli gent yet fearless. '' Although the 
letter s praise the Petitioner for his skills and work ethic, they do not explain how he has made 
original contributions of major significance in the field. Having a diverse skill set is not a 
contribution of major significance in and of itself. Rather, the record must be supported by ev idence 
that the Petitioner has already used those unique skills to impact the field at a significant level. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner' s status in the field 
without providing specitic examples of how his contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not ex plain how an individual's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insuffici ent to establish original contributions of 
maj or significance in the field . Kazarian, 580 F.3d at I 036, affd in part 596 F.3d at 111 5, 11 22. 
Moreover. USC IS need not accep t primarily conclu sory stateme nts. 1756. Inc. v. The U.S. All ).1 
Gen.. 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). For these reaso ns, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the di.\play o{ the alien ·s work in the field at artistic exh;hitions or show cases. 
8 C.F.R. ~ 204 .5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner claim s to fulfill thi s criterion based on '·running . placing and winning' ' ultram arat hon 
races . In order to demonstrat e eligibility for this criteri on, the Petitioner must show that his '"'·ork 
was on displa y. and the ven ues were artistic exhibitions or showca ses .1 Here , the Petition er has not 
shown that the races or eve nts constituted artistic venues that displayed his work. Accor din gly. the 
Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion . 
Evidence that the alien has pet:fimned in a leading or critical role .fiJr or~an i:::ati o ns or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F. R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(viii) . 
In generaL a leading role is ev idenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which a 
petitioner was responsible for the succe ss or standing of the orga nization or establishment. The 
Petitioner contends that his fundraising for and running for dem onstrates his 
eligibilit y for this criterio n. Regarding while stated that the Petitioner 
participated in fund raising in 20 10 as part of she did not indicat e that he held a 
leader ship position with or Furthermore , letter doe s not rdl ect that the 
Petitioner performed in esse ntial critical role for or She did not. for exampl e. show that 
the Petitioner ' s role was of signiticant importance to the outcome of successful fundraising or . . . .., 
actJVJtJCS. ~ 
1 
See USC IS Policy Memor andu m PM-602-0005.1 , Evaluation of" Eviden ce Suhmitled u·ith Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions: Revisions to the Adjudicat or 's Field Manual (AFMJ Chap ter 22.2. AFM Update AD/1-I.J 9 (Dec . 22. 20 10), 
https:l /www. usci s.gov /sites/defau ltlfi les/oco mm/i I ink/0-0-0-64 23. htm I. 
1 !d. at 10. 
.
Malter(!/' R-S-F-
As it relates to did not identify the Petitioner's affiliation. if any, with In 
addition. the Petitioner did not indicate what role. if any. he performed for besides running in 
ultramarathon races. The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner held a prominent position 
or that he was critical to the outcome of activities. Moreover , the Petitioner did not establish 
the enjoys a distinguished reputation. For these reasons. the Petitioner did not show that he 
meets this criterion. 
Ill. 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 
tina! merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 .3 Nevertheless. we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate. concluding that it does not support a tinding that 
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification so ught. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies tor classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed . 
Cite as Maffer of'R-S-F-, ID# 925440 (AAO Feb. 27, 2018) 
3 
In addition, we do not need to determine whether the Petitioner intends to continue to work in the United States in his 
area of expertise. See section 203(b)( I )(A)(iii) of the INA and 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(5).