dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce ofAdminisrrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
a U.S. Citizenshio 
SRC 08 2 18 52257 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
wperry  hew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in athletics, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualifL for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director erred in denying the petition without first issuing a 
notice of intent to deny or request for additional evidence. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(2)(8)(ii) permits the director to deny the petition for lack of initial evidence or ineligibility in 
lieu of issuing a request for initial evidence. Even assuming the director erred in failing to issue either a 
request for additional evidence or notice of intent to deny, the most expedient remedy for that error 
would be to consider any additional evidence of eligibility on appeal. The petitioner further asserts that 
the director erred by characterizing the evidence as exclusively letters and providing little analysis of 
the evidence submitted. We acknowledge the submission of some evidence in addition to the 
numerous reference letters that form the bulk of the petitioner's eligibility claim and will address that 
evidence as well as the new evidence submitted on appeal below. For the reasons discussed below, we 
concur with the director that the petitioner has not submitted the necessary evidence required for 
eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Moreover, we further find that the petitioner has not 
submitted the necessary evidence to establish his intent to continue in his area of claimed expertise, 
soccer playing. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has 
been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 
1989). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that 
an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise 
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a soccer player. At 
the outset, we note that the supplementary information at Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 
60899 (Nov. 29, 1991) states: 
The Service disagrees that all athletes performing at the major league level should 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. . . . A blanket rule for all major 
league athletes would contravene Congress' intent to reserve this category to "that small 
percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
Thus, the petitioner's membership on a professional major league soccer team in Georgia cannot, by 
itself, establish eligibility. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has never explained which criteria he claims to meet. 
The criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) follow. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner initially submitted a self-serving list of medals including the Tbilisi Championship Cup, 
a Gold Medal in the Georgian championship, a medal for Best Shooter of the Year, a Medal for Best 
Forward of the Season and a "deed for Best Goal. In support of this list, the petitioner submitted 
photographs of one trophy and four medals. Only two photographs contain clearly legible inscriptions, 
neither of which names the petitioner. One of the medals with a legible inscription was issued by an 
unknown entity for 2005-2006 and another was issued on an unknown date by the Georgian Football 
Federation. The reference letters, however, suggest that the petitioner stopped playing in 2003 and 
began coaching at a children's football school, Moon Globe. The petitioner did not document the entity 
that issued the other medals and trophy or their dates of issue. Finally, the petitioner submitted an 
undated "Diploma" acknowledging the petitioner's participation in the Georgian Regional League 
Championship issued by the Tbilisi Football Federation President. 
None of the ~ublished material submitted, either initiallv or on ameal. references the petitioner's receipt 
-A , 
of awards or prizes individually or as a member of a winning team. 
 Head of the 
Professional Football League of Georgia, asserts that in the 2001-2002 season, the petitioner was 
named "best player of the tournament" and in the following year he was named Best Forward in the 
First League of Georgia. , Assistant President of the Professional Football 
League of Georgia, however, asserts that the petitioner was named shooter of the First League 
Championship in 2001-2002. We note that the record reveals that Georgia has a major league, which is 
above that of the first league. Specifically, the petitioner's team, Mtskheta, was moved up from first 
league to major league while the petitioner was on the team. - 
and 
 assert generally that the petitioner has 
"many rewards, prizes and titles" but do not identify those honors or provide any dates. 
The record lacks evidence that the petitioner won lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards 
or prizes. Specifically, the petitioner did not submit any evidence regarding the significance of the 
medals and the trophy he claims to have won. Significantly, the record lacks published material 
proclaiming the petitioner's team the winner of a national championship. The 2005-2006 medal is 
inconsistent with the claims in the record that the petitioner stopped competing as a player in 2003. It 
is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent 
objective evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or 
reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Id. 
The record does not establish whether the petitioner's designation as best player of the tournament 
was in the first league or the major league. The petitioner's designation as best forward was limited 
to the lesser first league rather than the major league. As major league participation is insufficient, 
56 Fed. Reg. at 60899, an award issued in a lesser league cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
Finally, the 2005-2006 medal notwithstanding, the petitioner appears to have stopped playing in 2003. 
Thus, any athletic awards he may have received are not indicative of sustained national or international 
acclaim in July 2008 when the petition was filed. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which classfication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
The record establishes that the petitioner has played on first and major league soccer teams in Georgia. 
The published materials include some suggestion that the petitioner was invited to play on a Turkish 
team, but the record does not establish the level of this team or whether the petitioner actually played on 
this team. A team is not an association. Thus, team membership cannot serve as evidence to meet this 
criterion. Moreover, we reiterate that participating at the major league level is insufficient to establish 
eligibility for this exclusive classification sought. 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899. While membership on a 
national team that competes in major international competitions such as the Olympics may, on a case 
by case basis, serve as comparable evidence to meet this criterion, the record lacks evidence that the 
petitioner represented Georgia on a national team competing at a major international competition such 
as the Olympics or even the World Cup. Finally, we note that the record lacks evidence of any team 
membership after 2003, five years before the petition was filed. Thus, his team membership is not 
evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets 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 classfication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence of several interviews, mostly in undated newspapers. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the material appear in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. We cannot determine whether the materials meet this requirement if 
the identity of the publication is not documented. Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) expressly requires the date of the material. Without that information, we cannot 
determine whether the materials are evidence of sustained acclaim at the time the petition was filed. 
One of the dated articles is a 2008 interview with the petitioner as an "ex-footballer" seeking his views 
on an upcoming European championship. As the petitioner did not establish the identity of the 
publication, we cannot determine whether it is a professional or major trade publication or other major 
media. While interviews about an alien's career would clearly be "about" the alien relating to his work, 
we cannot ignore that the 2008 interview was about an upcoming European championship in which the 
petitioner would not participate. Thus, it was not "about" the petitioner, nor did it relate to the 
petitioner's work as opposed to the work of others in the field of soccer. 
The petitioner also submitted a 2003 article in Lelo interviewing the petitioner about his team. While 
this material is "about" the petitioner, it predates the petition by five years. The record contains a letter 
from Mr. Tikhashvili, a journalist for Lelo, who asserts that the newspaper has "the highest circulation." 
This article, however, cannot establish the petitioner's sustained acclaim in 2008 when the petition was 
filed. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a 1996 interview with the petitioner in Stadium, another 1996 
interview in an unidentified newspaper, and two 1999 interviews in Sporting Kaleidoscope. The 
petitioner did not establish the distribution or circulation of either publication or other evidence 
suggesting these publications are professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Several of these interviews use the same photographs of the petitioner which also appear in one of the 
undated articles submitted initially. These materials, even if legitimate newspaper articles, cannot 
establish the petitioner's sustained acclaim approximately a decade later in 2008 when the petition was 
filed. 
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 alliedfield ofspeczfication for which classzfication is sought. 
The record contains no evidence relating to this criterion. While we acknowledge that the petitioner 
appears to have worked as a soccer instructor, we are not persuaded that the type of review 
responsibilities inherent to any coach or instructor position are the type of review responsibilities that 
can serve to meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
The record contains several letters from colleagues, journalists and even opponents who praise the 
petitioner's skills as a player. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot 
form the cornerstone of a successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's 
eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, 
in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of SofJici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg'l. Comrn'r. 1972)). Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition 
carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaim. Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues or letters that do not 
specifically identify contributions or how those contributions have influenced the field are 
insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2009 WL 2836453, *5 (9'h Cir. 2009). 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrases "original" and "major 
significance" are not superfluous and, thus, that they have some meaning. None of the letters 
identify any specific original contributions or explain how the petitioner has impacted the field of 
soccer. For example asserts generally that the petitioner "was able to bring about 
radical changes in the - game." does not, however, state what those changes were or 
provide examples of widespread implementation of these changes beyond the teams for which the 
petitioner played. similarly, - a coach who previously worked with the petitioner's 
team, asserts that the petitioner "made his contribution in successful games of the team." We are not 
persuaded that playing a sport successfully is either original or a contribution of major significance in 
the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The record contains no evidence relating to this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
This criterion relates to the visual arts, which is not the petitioner's field. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for this criterion are the roles the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the entities 
that selected him. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(;)(viii). In other words, the nature of the role must be such that 
the selection of the ~etitioner to fill the role is bv itself indicative of or consistent with national or 
international acclaim. According to at the 
Professional Football League of Georgia, the petitioner played with the ~eor~ian major league team 
Merani from 1999 through 2000. mfkther asserts that the petitioner was then moved to a 
lesser league's team, the Mtskheta in 2001. Finally, explains that in 2002, that team was 
moved up from the first league to the major league. As stated above, participation at the major league 
level is insufficient to establish eligibility for the classification sought. 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899. While 
the petitioner's references attest to his performance accomplishments on his teams, at issue is the 
official role for which the petitioner was selected and its place in the hierarchy of the team. 
The record contains no evidence that the petitioner was the official team captain or otherwise served in 
an official leading or critical role that distinguishes him from the other players on the team. Moreover, 
the petitioner has not established the distinguished reputation of the petitioner's teams in relation to 
other major league teams. For example, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner's teams won 
national championships while the petitioner was a member. 
We have already considered the petitioner's selection as best player and forward in 2002 and 2003 
under the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(i). Only a major internationally recognized award 
takes the place of meeting three separate criteria. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3). Thus, we are not persuaded 
that these selections should also be considered under this criterion. Even if we were to conclude that 
the petitioner's selection as best player or forward in 2002 and 2003 is relevant to this criterion, these 
selections predate the petition by several years and cannot be considered evidence of the petitioner's 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijkantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires evidence of a high salary or significantly high 
remuneration in relation to others in thefield. Thus, according to the plain language of this regulation, 
the petitioner must document not only his own remuneration but the high end wages in his occupation 
for comparison purposes. The record initially contained no evidence of the petitioner's salary or other 
remuneration or comparable remuneration in the field with which we could compare the petitioner's 
remuneration. On appeal, the petitioner submits a "certificate" from 
asserting that the petitioner's monthly salary was 1,600 GEL. The record, however, is still 
absent evidence of the high end soccer salaries in Georgia for comparison purposes. Thus, the 
petitioner has not documented that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofJice receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner's field is athletics, not the performing arts. Thus, this criterion is not relevant to the 
petitioner's field. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
soccer player to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner showed previous talent as a soccer player, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
No ofer of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States 
nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must be 
accompanied by clear evidence that the alien 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 prearranged 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. 
On the Form 1-140 petition, Part 6, the petitioner indicated that he proposed to work as a soccer player. 
The petitioner did not submit letters from prospective employers, prearranged commitments such as 
contracts or even his own personal statement detailing how he intends to continue playing soccer in the 
United States, which the petitioner has not done since 2003, or coach. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits a letter from the father of two of his students affirming his work as an instructor. Thus, it 
appears that the petitioner may seek to work as a coach or instructor rather than a player. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h) requires the beneficiary to "continue work in the area of 
expertise." The petitioner, however, intends to work as a coach in the United States. While a soccer 
player and a coach certainly share knowledge of soccer, the two rely on very different sets of basic 
skills. Thus, competitive athletics and coaching are not the same area of expertise.' Given the 
petitioner's employment as an instructor since 2003, which has afforded him plenty of time to show 
accomplishments as a coach or instructor, he cannot rely on his competitor achievements, which are 
several years old, but must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim as a coach or 
instructor to qualify for the classification sought. The record contains no evidence of the petitioner's 
sustained national or international acclaim as a soccer coach or instructor. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 
 See Lee v. INS., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914,918 (N.D. Ill. 2002).