remanded EB-1A Case: Mountaineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 14, 2024 In Re: 30116386 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a mountaineer, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
specify his intended employment in the United States, and therefore the Director could not determine 
whether the Petitioner had established sustained national or international acclaim in his field. The 
matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit 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 their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence 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. If those standards 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we 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). 
The petition must be accompanied by clear evidence that the noncitizen is coming to the United States 
to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective 
employer(s), evidence of preaITanged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the 
beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the United States. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). The Director determined that the Petitioner "did not clearly identify ... the 
area of expertise he is claiming." As explained below, we disagree with this detennination, and will 
remand the matter for a decision on the merits. 
When he first filed the Form I-140 petition in October 2021, the Petitioner left blank the line marked 
"Occupation." In a separate statement, the Petitioner stated his intention "to work in the 
Mountaineering activities service and industry in the United States." The Petitioner listed several 
diverse occupations related to mountaineering, such as "[o]utdoor tour operating," "[c]limbing event 
organizing," "[aa ]valanche forecasting," and "[cc ]limbing and skiing film making." The Petitioner did 
not specify which of these occupations he intends to pursue in the United States. 
In January 2023, the Director issued a request for evidence, stating: "It is unclear as to what the 
beneficiary intends as his occupation or area of claimed extraordinary ability." 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a second copy of the Form I-140 petition, listing his occupation 
as "Mountain Guide, climb/ski instructor." The Petitioner also submitted a letter from an employer 
that had hired the Petitioner "as a part-time seasonal Ski Instructor" in November 2022. 
The Director denied the petition in March 2023, stating: "the beneficiary has not specified one area 
of expertise. As such, an analysis of the claimed criteria [at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)] cannot be 
conducted prior to the beneficiary specifying one area of expertise to which all the claimed criteria 
should apply." 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
The Rock Climbing, Mountaineering and Backcountry Skiing sports belong to 
mountaineering activities .... 
These three sp01is (cultures) are tightly fused to each other requiring common skills, 
philosophy and knowledge. 
2 
About my intentions for working as a rock climbing, mountaineering and skiing 
guide/instructor ... I have mentioned the summer and winter seasons separately ... 
leading [ the Director] to a confusion and misinterpretation about identifying the one 
area of expertise . 
. . . [M]y intention is to work in the United States as a mountain guide/instructor (that 
necessarily means for rock climbing, alpine climbing and backcountry skiing). 
We conclude that the Petitioner has adequately identified his intended area of employment. The 
Director appears to have interpreted the phrase "rock climbing, mountaineering and skiing" as 
referring to three entirely separate activities, whereas the Petitioner's evidence indicates that the 
activities are all mountain sports, inte1related to a sufficient extent that one could consistently claim 
expertise, recognition, and employment in all three. 
The next step is for the Petitioner to establish extraordinary ability as a climbing and skiing instructor. 
The Petitioner claims to have satisfied six of the ten extraordinary ability criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). The Director, in the denial notice, did not consider these claims in any detail. 
Rather, the Director stated the general conclusion that "the record does not show [the Petitioner's] 
work has [been] recognized at a level indicative of a record of sustained acclaim or that he is among 
that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor." The Director did not explain how they 
reached this conclusion or what evidence they considered in doing so. 
The Director's general statement of ineligibility does not explain the specific reasons for denial as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i). Therefore, the Petitioner did not have an opportunity to address 
specific concerns on appeal. The Director must consider the Petitioner's specific claims and evidence 
relating to the six claimed criteria. In so doing, the Director should also take into account whether the 
evidence relates to the Petitioner's intended occupation as an instructor in mountaineering sports. If 
the Director determines that the Petitioner has satisfied at least three of the evidentiary criteria, then 
the Director must undertake a final merits determination as described in Kazarian. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3