dismissed EB-1A Case: Volleyball

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17184754 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 27, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, al . I coach, seeks classification as an alien 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that while the Petitioner met 
the initial evidence requirements for the requested classification, the record did not establish that he 
had sustained national or international acclaim in his field and was one of the small percentage of 
those volleyball coaches at the top of the field. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) 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 
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. 20 l 0) 
( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has competed as al lathlete for several years as a member of teams in the top 
1 · Ukraine, Italy, France, and Greece. He is currently employed as a master coach with the 
thletic Club d/b/a I I and states that he wishes to continue working as a 
coach and athlete in the United States, with the goal of starting his ownl lclub. 
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 three of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to his receipt of lesser awards, membership in an 
association in his field, and his judge of the work of others in his field. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that he also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to published material about him, original 
contributions of major significance to the field, and leading or critical roles for organizations with a 
distinguished reputation. 1 After reviewing all of the previously submitted evidence in the record, we 
disagree with the Director's conclusions regarding two criteria and partially withdraw his decision as 
detailed below. 2 
1 In counsel's brief: he did not contest the findings of the director regarding the criterion relating to a high salary at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) or offer additional arguments. We therefore consider this issue to be abandoned. See Sepulveda 
v. U.S. Att'.v Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 
at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30. 2011) (the court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on 
appeal to the AAO). 
2 We note that the Petitioner has submitted new evidence with his appeal brief. Where, as here, a Petitioner has been put 
on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opp01iunity to respond to that deficiency. the AAO will 
not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. Matter ol Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter ol 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). We will therefore not consider this new evidence in our analysis. 
2 
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) 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner was a member of~l ___ ~I teams which received the 
highest awards in competition at the national level, including: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I 
2005-06, I 
2006-07, 
2007-08, 
2008-09 
2013-14 
2014-15 
I Super~ League I 
I champion season, second place league cup,I.__ __ ___. 
I 
I second place season, second place leaguµc!J.JJt..!::::s;~= ... 
ond place season, champion league c......,....---.~ sec 
cha rnpion season, charn ion lea ue cu 
I second pla ce league cup,~------.-------.===;--->"' 
firs t place league cup, second place seaso .....__ _ ____. 
As the evidence shows that the Petitioner played an important role for these teams and was one of a 
small number of contributors to the award, we conclude that this evidence shows that he meets this 
criterion. 
The Petitioner also claimed thatl ~ a team he was a member of for the 
2016-17 and 2017-18 seasons, won third place in the I League championship, but we note 
that the evidence of this consists only of a page from a Wikipedia article. As there are no assurances 
about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited Internet site, information from Wikipedia 
will be accorded no evidentiary weight. See Laamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th 
Cir. 2008). 3 In addition, a letter from the President of1 I does not mention this award, and the 
record does not include images of a trophy or certificate acknowledging the award. The Petitioner has 
therefore not established that the team received this award. 
The record also includes evidence of individual awards received by the Petitioner, which include: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
2008,.__ _______ ____. tournament, Best Playerl I 
2015, Most Valuable Player, Garnes 5 and 9 ofl 1 , , 1 , I 
2016-17, I I League besJ player! of the regular season ("all-star tearn"j 
May 2017, Most Valuable Player 's Cup Tournament in~I ---------~ 
3 See also the online content from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: General_disclaimer, accessed on May 10, 
2021, and copy incorporated into the record of proceeding is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop 
a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet 
connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed 
by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information ... 
. Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given aiiicle 
may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not conespond 
with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
3 
The evidence shows that the I I League "all-star team" was selected by a jury of journalists 
and league coaches and reported in L 'Equipe, a national sports newspaper. Accordingly, we agree 
with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien'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) 
The Petitioner bases his claim to this criterion upon his membership in the I I national men's 
.__ __ ___.I team. A petitioner's participation as a member of a national team may demonstrate 
eligibility for this criterion, as such teams typically limit their number of members and have a rigorous 
selection process. It is the Petitioner's burden, however, to demonstrate that he meets every element 
of a given criterion. We will not assume that every national team is sufficiently exclusive and requires 
outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international experts in 
their fields or disciplines. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from I I president of the l,r------,. ___ ___J 
Federation, who confirms that he was a member of the Ukrainian men's national I team from 
2009 to 2018. I I states that national team members are selected "on the competitive basis," 
and is based upon their "performance of target programs and plans of training for the corresponding 
year." He further writes that the coaches of the national team are responsible for choosing the athletes 
for the national team based upon "observing the players' acts during the game and through studying 
of their individual statistics during the game season, as well as the player's compliance with the 
playing type and model results of the competitive activities." I I does not identify any 
specific benchmarks required of national team members, and the letter does not explain how the 
"performance of target programs and plans of training" and "compliance with the playing type and 
model results" are outstanding achievements. While he notes that the Petitioner earned a "Master of 
Sports" title as a member of thd,__ __ ___,khampionship team, he does not indicate that this or other 
achievements were requirements or led directly to his selection to the national team. In addition,D 
I Is letter is not supported by any corroborating documentation such as official mies or selection 
procedures for the national team. We therefore disagree with the Director's conclusion and find that 
the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the.field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In his decision, the Director acknowledged that several articles about the Petitioner and hi~~------' 
career had been submitted, but he found that the evidence did not establish that any of the media in 
which these articles appeared were one of the qualifyins types under this criterion. On appeal, the 
Petitioner focuses on articles published on thel J websitd I and sport.ua, as well 
as midilibre.fr and sport-fin.gr, and the interview of him carried on Greek television channel 
"Novasports." Although all of these media published articles about the Petitioner and his work as a 
4 
~--~I player, the evidence does not establish that any of them are professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
In support of his assertion that these media are one of the qualifying types, the Petitioner submitted 
varyinJ sources of information. Regarding thel lua website, which published an interview of 
him o I 201 7, 4 as well as a brief story about his transfer tol ,I he included a website 
traffic report from SiteSTMT.com and another from websiteoutlook.com. These provided metrics 
such as "daily pageviews" (between 2,450 and 3,920) and ranks (612,029 and 449,133, respectively), 
but does not provide any other context showing that these websites qualify as mjjor meTa. Similarly, 
sport.ua published two interviews of the Petitioner, onl I 2008 and 2018, and he 
submitted information about this website from hostinfo.pw and similarweb.com. The former indicated 
that sport.ua has 53,935 visitors per day, while the latter charted "visits" per month at between 5 
million and IO million. While this information suggests that sport.ua is a more popular website than 
I I it does not establish that it qualifies as major media when compared to all media in 
I 
As mentioned above, the record also includes evidence from other media types that published material 
about the Petitioner and his work as al I athlete, including the French newspaper Midi Libre 
and the Greek television channel "Novasports." The information from the newspaper's website 
indicates that it is a regional newspaper, and that the entire portfolio of newspapers, magazines and 
internet sites maintained by the Journaux du Midi publishing group enjoys readership of 837,000 per 
day. This information is not specific to Midi Libre, and is insufficient to establish that it qualifies as 
major media. Nor is the information provided from the website of Novasports, which is marketing 
material and provides no relevant data to show that it is a major medium in Greece. 
The evidence also includes other articles about the Petitioner and hisl I career, published on 
websites such as hotsport.ua, sibsport.info, and~ _____ __, but he did not submit evidence to 
establish that these media were one of the qualifying types under this criteria. Therefore, based upon 
the analysis above, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
In his decision the Director concluded, based upon evidence of the Petitioner's qualification as a 
referee and his service as an honorary judge at al I tournament, that he meets this 
criterion. The evidence submitted in support of this criterion also includes the 0' s regulations 
4 The Petitioner also submitted an interview of the Petitioner published on this website oir:=] ?.020 in response to the 
Director's request for evidence, months after the petition was filed. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1). (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi. 22 I&N Dec. 
169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision, citing Matter of Bardouille. 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), further provides that 
USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. We will 
therefore not consider this article in our analysis. 
5 
regarding! !referees, which describes the qualifications and age limits for referees but does 
not explain the role or duties of a referee. 
As evidence of his participation as a judge of the work of others, an article orts.ua on 
02018 notes that the Petitioner was an honored guest of the........,. ____________ ___, 
tournament, and also served as a referee. In addition, a letter fro ~-.,.,..,.........,....,--,----....,...,... president of 
the I I states that this tournament was "held in compliance with the 
international rules of I of the I I and are serviced by the qualified referees." 
Although this evidence also does not explain the role of al 7 referee, we note that th~ I 
....._ _____________ ~ with whichl !stated the tournament complies 
indicates that the function of a referee, among other pre-match duties, is to "issue warnings to the 
teams; to sanction misconduct and delays," and to decide upon various faults by the players during the 
match. In other words, it indicates that~ !referee enforces the officia!L I rules, rather 
than judging the performance of the players by awarding points or exercising his judgment by 
determining a winner. As such, the Petitioner's service as a referee is not sufficient to establish that 
he participated as a judge of the work of othe~ I players or coaches, as opposed to ensuring 
that they followed the official rules. 6 We disagree with the Director and conclude that the Petitioner 
does not meet 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) 
"Contributions of major significance" connotes that a petitioner's work has significantly impacted the 
field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. 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. 
Here, the Petitioner stresses that he has made contributions to the field as a I I athlete and 
coach. As evidence of his coaching contributions, he refers to a letter froml I dated May 
8, 2020, which indicates that he served as an assistant coach ofthel !national men'sl I 
team during the 2016-17 season. Whil~ I indicates that the Petitioner is "a highly trained 
professional and has earned the great respect of his colleagues," he does not state that the Petitioner's 
performance as an assistant coach resulted in contributions that widely impacted or influenced the 
team, let alone the field ofl I We further note that this letter is not corroborated by other 
evidence of the Petitioner's role as an assistant coach during a period that he was competing as a player 
for this team, and was not mentioned inl I's initial correspondence. 
Turning to his contributions as al I athlete, the Petitioner focuses on the previously discussed 
evidence of his participation on several professional European teams as well as thtj I national 
team, including the statistics showing his performance in individual matches in European tournaments. 
Although the match statistics show that he played well in those matches and contributed to his teams' 
effort, they do not demonstrate that those athletic contributions impacted the overall field ofl I 
5 https:/....._ _________________ ~accessed on May 11, 20,_,, J~-~ 
6 The Petitioner also submitted evidence of his "Provisional Referee Ce1iificate" from USAI I but did not submit 
evidence that he has perfmmed as a referee in the United States. Fmiher, the evidence does not establish that participating 
as al I referee in the United States would satisfy this criterion. 
6 
The same can be said of the Petitioners designations as a "best player" and "most valuable player" for 
games, tournaments, and seasons. In all cases, his acknowledged athletic efforts contributed to the 
I I team for which he was competing, and have not been shown to have made a broader, 
significant impact on the sport as a whole. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe1formed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
In general, a critical role is one in which an individual has contributed in a way that is if significant 
importance to the outcome of an organization's activities. 7 In his decision, the Director stated that 
reference letters submitted by the Petitioner did not provide sufficient detail regarding his role for the 
I lteams that he played for to meet this criterion. He further noted that the evidence was not 
sufficient to show that his current employer, thel .-------,I has a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner focuses on his role as anl I for the numerous I !teams that 
he played for during his career, claiming that it "is already a critical position in itself" While he refers 
to newly submitted evidence, the original submission also included information regarding the I I I I position. That evidence, from! • , l states that ~-----------~ ~~-.-------.---~ and are "considered to be the most reliable," but does not indicate that 
the position is more or less important or critical than any other on al I team. More importantly, 
unlike a leading role which may be inherent in a specific position or title, it is a petitioner's 
contribution to an organization's success which determines whether he or she has played a critical role 
to that organization, not the nature of the role itself. As the Petitioner notes.I I is a team sport, 
and we do not find the evidence sufficient to show that he meets this criterion based upon his position 
alone. 
The Petitioner next focuses on newly submitted match reports which focus on individual games for 
three of the teams for which he played, which we will also not consider. We note that he received 
"Most Valuable Player" awards for individual matches in the 2015C7 Cup while plaving for 
I I as well as for thdf s Cup Tournament inl lfor th{ I 
national team. He also prevTous'Iy submitted evidence showing his ranking in certain I I 
metrics for specific matches. But these awards and statistics do not establish that the Petitioner played 
a critical role in any overall success these teams enjoyed over the course of an entirel I season, 
which is a more relevant gauge of the overall success of the organization. 
As noted in our analysis of the criterion relating to lesser awards, the Petitioner also submitted 
evidence that he was selected as one of the best players for the 2016-17 season in thel I 
League, one of twol I athletes so named. In addition, a letter from the president o~ I states 
that the Petitioner "contributed greatly to our top-notch sports team and its qualification for the 
European Cup, a first for the Club for nearly 10 years." However, this letter does not provide details 
about the criticality of the Petitioner's role fo~ I Therefore, this evidence does not establish 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14. (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
7 
that the Petitioner played a leading or critical role for the team. Further, although the evidence 
indicates that the team was somewhat successful in the 2016-1 7 season, winning second place in the 
I lleague and returninf to the European Cup, it does not show that I I had built a 
distinguished reputation amongst I teams. 
The Petitioner also assert~ that he meets this criterion based upon his current role as a master coach 
with the I J The Director's decision noted that the reference letters, including that 
submitted by his current employer, were not sufficiently detailed to show that the Petitioner's role was 
leading or critical, and also concluded that the evidence did not establish that this organization enjoyed 
a distinguished reputation. On apveal, the Petitioner refers to a letter dated July 12, 2020, from the 
I ~xecutive Director,L I who states that he is one of four coaches employed 
by the club who is qualified to teach its highest level high school athletes. He goes on to state that the 
Petitioner coached the club's top team in the previous year, which was cut short by the COVID 19 
pandemic, and is scheduled to do so in the following year. This letter primarily indicates that the 
Petitioner's presence is important to the future recrnitment and development of athletes, and does not 
show that the Petitioner has already played a critical role that has been shown to be of importance to 
any success enjoyed by thel I organization. 
A second letter froml ldated August 8, 2020, states that the Petitioner directed the clubs 
boys national I I program, and that under his direction the teams qualified for the national 
tournament, with one earning a silver medal at the tournament. However, although the evidence 
includes tournament brackets with players' names hiPhlighted by the Petitioner, this evidence includes 
no reference to the Petition or thel ! We therefore agree with the Director that the 
evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that the Petitioner has played a leading or critical role for 
his current employer. 
In addition, we also agree that the record does not include evidence which establishes that thd~--~ 
[ I has a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that "it is one of the best 
l ., lin Texas, also well known around the U.S." However, he does not refer to specific 
evidence to support this assertion, either on appeal or in his response to the Director's request for 
evidence. The evidence of a single third place win in a tournament which is directly tied to thd I ~-~I is insufficient to show that it enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
For all of the reasons provided in the above analysis, we conclude that the evidence does not establish 
that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
After our review and partial withdrawal of the Director's decision, we conclude that 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. We therefore need not provide the type of final merits determination 
referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. However, as the Director conducted a final merits 
analysis which the Petitioner asserts misapplied USCIS policy and precedent, we will briefly review 
those assertions and the merits of the Petitioner's claim under this standard. 
8 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in his final merits determination by not considering the 
totality of the evidence, but reviewed each criterion individually. We note that while the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner met three criteria, his discussion of the evidence related to these and other 
criteria in the final merits determination applied the elements from these criteria again instead of 
considering whether, as part of the balance of the record, it established that the Petitioner has sustained 
national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of his field. 
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 record shows that the Petitioner competed as ~ I player at the national level in his own 
country, and went on to compete at the top professional level in other European countries as well. 
However, 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, although the Petitioner demonstrated that he received a level of national 
acclaim as an athlete, most notably withl I he did not show that this acclaim was sustained or 
that his achievements were frequently or widely reported upon in major sports or news media. Further, 
although he representedl I as a national team member and competed for nationally successful 
professional teams inl land Greece, the record does not establish that his participation in these 
teams' national success placed him among the small percentage oti I athletes at the top of the 
field. The evidence does not show that these teams were among those achieving success at the highest 
levels ofi !competition, or that his individual performance elevated him to the same status as 
athletes successfully competing at the highest international level. The evidence was also insufficient 
to show that he was compensated at a rate commensurate with that of an elite professiona~ I 
athlete. 
Regarding his work as al lcoach, which he intends to continue in the United States, the 
Petitioner states on appeal that the Director failed to consider his recent transition to this new phase of 
his career, and relies upon our non-precedent decision in Matter of K-S-Y- (AAO Mar. 9 2016). This 
decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS officers in future 
adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3( c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and policy to the 
specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. Although that decision involved 
a similar transition from coach to athlete as is present here, we found that the petitioner in that case 
had established sustained acclaim and status near the top of his field through his success as an athlete 
at the national and international level. Here, we do not conclude that the Petitioner qualifies as an 
individual of extraordinary ability as a I I athlete, or as a coach. Further, in considTing I 
~ his area of expertise includes the coaching otj I athletes, we noted above that 
L__Js letter concerning his role as an assistant coach for thel I national team is not 
corroborated by other evidence in the record. 
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. 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. l O 1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )( 1 )(A) 
9 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner 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