dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-8-L-P-
NQn-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 28, 2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a competitive swimmer and swimming coach, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability is athletics. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he meets six criteria. He argues that the Director's decision 
was erroneous, did not address all of the claimed criteria, misapplied applicable case law, and was 
not supported by the record. With his appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(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 
.
Matter ofG-B-L-P-
(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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
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. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 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); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence 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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was working for the as an 
assistant senior coach. He has indicated that he intends to coach and that he "will continue to 
compete in various national and international competitions, with his main goal being to represent 
in the ." As the Petitioner has not established that he has received a 
major, internationally recognized award, 1 he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the following criteria: awards at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), membership at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii),published material at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v),display at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii), and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). He further argues 
that he has demonstrated his sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among the 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Although the Director discounted evidence 
relating to the Petitioner's experience as a swimmer, we will evaluate all evidence relating to his 
1 The Petitioner initially contended that his record for in the 50 meter freestyle was a one­
time achievement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, however, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's 
determination that this accomplishment does not quality as a major, internationally recognized award or offer further 
arguments regarding this issue. 
2 
.
Matter ofG-B-L-P-
swimming achievements as both an athlete and a coach. 2 Upon review of all of the evidence, we 
conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements 
of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt olfesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the .field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner submitted documentation showing that he won swimming championships in 
in freestyle events between Accordingly, he has established that he meets this 
regulatory criterion. 
Documentation (?[the alien's membership in associations in thefieldfor which class?fzcation 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements a_[ their members. asjudged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or.fzelds. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The record includes a letter from president of the 
stating that the Petitioner was a member of the federation. Mr. also 
asserted that the Petitioner "has participated in international swimming events, as a member of the 
" However, the record does not sufficiently establish his membership on 
the 3 In addition, the Petitioner offered his 
card and evidence that he was a member of the sw1m 
team. The Petitioner , however, did not provide documentary evidence showing that the 
, and the and swim teams required outstanding achievements of 
their members , as judged by recognized national or international expe11s. He therefore has not 
established that he meets this criterion . 
Published material about the alien in prqfessional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the.field.for which classtfzcation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title. date, and author o_fthe material. and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
2 We note that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Adjudicator ' s Field Manual (AFM) provides the following 
guidance: 
In general, if a beneficiary has clearly achieved recent national or international acclaim as an athlete 
and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching /managing at a national level, adjudicators can 
consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and 
extraordinary ability such that we can conclude that coaching is within the beneficiary's area of 
expertise. 
AFM ch. 22.22(i)( I )(C) emphasis in original). 
3 While the record includes letters from stating that the Petitioner , as a teenager, represented at specific 
competitions, the letters do not identifY him as a member of the national team and nor do they indicate wheth er he 
participated in any events above the youth level. 
.
Matter ofG-B-L-P-
The Petitioner submitted multiple articles from the " website at 
While the article entitled ' 
in I" is about the Petitioner, the website's 
remaining articles are about swim meets in which he competed rather than the Petitioner himself. 
For example, the article entitled' " summarizes numerous swimmers' 
performances at the event and only briefly mentions the Petitioner's freestyle relay performance. 
The plain language of the regulatory criterion requires "published material about the alien." Articles 
that are not about the Petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. 
Okin, 2:07-CV-00820 at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show 
are not about the actor). Additionally, the Petitioner has not offered evidence demonstrating 
that the 
website is a form of major media. 
The record also includes newspaper articles entitled ' 
"and' 
Although the aforementioned articles are about the Petitioner, the name of the 
publications and their date were not provided, and it has not been established that these newspapers 
qualify as major media. The Petitioner also submitted a 
_ 2009 article in 
but the article is not about him, its author was not identified, and he has not demonstrated that this 
magazine is a form of major media. He further offered an article about him from 
entitled "[The Petitioner] is featured in the "but the author was not provided and he 
has not shown that this website is a form of major media. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided online articles from ' and the 
, but the articles were not about the Petitioner, their authors were not identified, and 
he has not shown that these publications rise to the level of major media. He also submitted 
an article in entitled " 
The aforementioned article discusses the accomplishments of swimmer and is 
not about the Petitioner. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not offered circulation evidence indicating 
that is a form of major media. Accordingly, he has established that he 
meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic. scholarly, artistic, athletic. or business-related 
contributions of major sign(fzcance in the .field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that he has made contributions of major significance as both a swimmer and 
a coach. As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner provided several reference letters and swim 
meet results. The Director determined the Petitioner's documentation was insufficient to establish 
that his swimming and coaching accomplishments constitute original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Specifically, the Director noted that the Petitioner had not shown that his 
work was "original and that it has influenced or significantly changed the sport of swimming.'' 
4 
.
Matter ofG-B-L-P-
The record includes letters of support from the Petitioner's fellow swimmers, his coaches at 
and individuals from the _ For example, head coach at 
the indicated that the Petitioner's coaching skills and techniques 
helped swimmer "achieve the title of and standards .. , 
In addition, Mr. : listed several others swimmers that they coached together who placed in the 
top four in the and who posted times that qualified them for the 
in . 2016. At the latter swim meet, the 
400 freestyle relay placed third. On appeal, the Petitioner states that 
m 2016 his swimmer "qualified for for the first time in her 
swimming career" and that whom the Petitioner conditioned through dryland 
training, also qualified for The appellate submission includes the aforementioned 
swimmers' qualifying times from the ' _ m 2016. 
We note that the competition results from August 2016 and later, however, post-date the tiling of the 
Form 1-140 on July 5, 2016. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12). Regardless, the Petitioner has not 
established that coaching athletes who enjoy success at the state or junior level of his sport rises to the 
level of original contributions of major significance in competitive swimming. 
chairman of the stated that he came to know the Petitioner 
based on his involvement with Mr. indicated that the 
Petitioner coached Ms. "who was named for her 
amazing accomplishments in the 50-yard freestyle." In the appeal brief, the Petitioner asserts that 
"[t]his is a prestigious title to hold in the for a high school athlete," but the record 
does not establish that Ms. receipt of this regional honor at the high school level is 
indicative of an original coaching contribution of major significance in the sport attributable to the 
Petitioner. 
head swimming coach at , discussed 
the Petitioner's accomplishments as a 
competitive swimmer and his recent experience as a coach.4 With regard to the Petitioner's coaching 
activities at , Mr. indicated that the Petitioner "assisted me with coaching two 
Qualifiers and Finalists. By coaching individuals who become Qualifiers and Finalists, [the 
Petitioner] is making significant and major contributions, as these individuals will possibly continue on 
to future ' Regarding the possibility that his swimmers may someday qualify for the 
, the Petitioner cannot successfully file a petition under this classification based on the 
expectation of future eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Furthermore, repeating the language of 
the regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. 
Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, 1997 WL 188942, *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). The record also 
includes a letter of support from former assistant swim coach at restating Mr. 
assertions and identifying the two swimmers as and 
The letters from Mr. and Mr. however, did not offer details regarding the 
aforementioned swimmers' specific training dates and workout regimen at under the 
4 Mr. "became assistant coach of the in 20 12, and was named interim head coach in 2015." 
5 
.
Matter ofG-B-L-P-
Petitioner's instruction. The evidence does not show that the Petitioner's coaching was integral to 
the two swimmers' competitive success or that his work was otherwise commensurate with 
original athletic contributions of major significance in the field. 
who swam for as a freshman and sophomore during the Petitioner's junior and 
senior years on the team, asserted that the Petitioner coached him in the 2014-15 season and that he 
has "continued to utilize [the Petitioner's] coaching techniques throughout my career as a 
swimmer." 5 As mentioned under the previous criterion, the record includes a 2014 article 
about Mr. m entitled '1 
'' The aforementioned article includes statements from head swimming coach in 
2014, describing how Mr. was recruited to the team and his competitive swimming 
accomplishments. While the Petitioner contends on appeal that "it was [his] coaching techniques 
and skills that lead toward his successes," the record reflects that the Petitioner was a 
competitive swimmer for in 2014 and not a team coach. Furthermore, Mr. who 
ranked in the country in the 50 freestyle as of 2014, stated that the Petitioner did not 
coach him until the 2014-15 season (which commenced in Fall 2014). Accordingly, the evidence is 
insufficient to demonstrate that Mr. competitive success was primarily attributable to the 
Petitioner rather than coaches such as Mr. and Mr. 
In addition to his coaching activities, the Petitioner asserts that he has made significant contributions 
as a competitive swimmer. For instance, the Petitioner contends that he 
. The record does not establish that 
setting a national age group record among swimmers rises to the 
level of an original contribution of major significance in the sport. 
a national team swimmer who placed in the m 
in 2012, stated: "[The Petitioner] and I were one of the first swimmers in to use 
straight arm recovery on sprint freestyle. This was an original contribution, which was quickly 
adopted by other swimmers." Similarly, another who 
competed in asserted that the Petitioner was "one of the first swimmers to use 
straight arm recovery on sprint freestyle" and that his style was "an original and major contribution." 
Mr. further noted that other swimmers incorporated the Petitioner's technique 
in their swimming. While Mr. and Mr. both contended that the Petitioner was 
"one of the first" utilizing the straight arm recovery method, there is no indication that he 
was the swimmer to originate the technique. Furthermore, neither reference identified other top 
swimmers who have enjoyed success in national or international competition based on their use of 
the Petitioner's specific technique, and there is no indication that swim coaches in the United States, 
or any other country are teaching his method at a level indicative of an original contribution 
of major significance in competitive swimming. 
s Mr. 
placing 
accomplishments in the 50 meter freestyle include 
and · at the 
, and 
.
Matter ofG-B-L-P-
With respect to the Petitioner's competitive swimming achievements, Mr. listed the Petitioner's 
results from age group national meets, 
Mr. further stated: 
By winning two , Titles while representing his 
[the Petitioner] contributed to the reputation of_ swim team. His results also 
were of major contribution for the highest rank in history along with the title of 
Swim Team in the U.S. for the year of 2014, beating the previous 
champions from 
The Petitioner's swimming titles at and other collegiate honors are 
more relevant to the awards category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), a separate and distinct 
criterion that he has already satisfied. Furthermore, the Petitioner's role in the team achieving 
its highest mid-major college ranking is more applicable to the leading or critical role criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and will be addressed there. Consistent with the regulatory requirement 
that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria, we will generally not consider evidence relating 
to the awards criterion or the leading or critical role criterion to satisfy this one. Regardless, the 
record does not establish that Petitioner's competitive swimming results at were indicative of 
original athletic contributions of major significance in the field. 
The letters considered above primarily contain discussions of the Petitioner's swimming and 
coaching results, and attestations of his status in the field without providing specific examples of 
how those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. USCIS need 
not accept primarily conclusory statements. I 756, Inc. v. The U.S. Att 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 
(D.C. Dist. 1990). Furthermore, uncorroborated statements from the Petitioner's references are 
insufficient to demonstrate his eligibility. See Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35; Matter o.f' Caron 
Int 'l. Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm 'r 1988) (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion, use 
as advisory opinions statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony,'' but is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit 
sought). Without additional supporting evidence showing that his work has been unusually 
influential, has substantially impacted his sport, or has otherwise risen to the level of original 
contributions of major significance in competitive swimming or coaching, the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence o.f' the display o.l the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
On the second page of the appeal brief, the Petitioner lists this regulatory criterion among the 
categories of evidence he claims to satisfy, but does not offer further discussion of his eligibility or 
point to specific documentation for this criterion. As the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient 
documentation that his work was displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases, he has not provided 
.
Matter ofG-B-L-P-
qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role fiJr organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner asserts that he has performed in a leading or critical role for , the 
national swim team, and the men's swim team. In general, a leading role is 
evidenced from the role itself, while a critical role is one in which a petitioner was responsible for 
the success or standing of the organization. 
While the evidence indicates that and have a distinguished reputation, the 
Petitioner has not indicated where his membership positions fit in the organizations' overall 
hierarchy or shown how his membership in those organizations was reflective of a leading or critical 
role. The record does not include evidence , for example , differentiating his role as a 
or member from that of the other competitors, coaches , and officers of those 
organizations . Setting a record in the 50 meter freestyle as a 
member is not sufficient to demonstrate that he served that federation in a leading or critical 
role. In addition, the Petitioner has not provided sutlicient evidence indicating that his swimming or 
coaching results impacted or · standing in the sport. 
With respect to the swim team, Mr. stated that the Petitioner "has 
participated in international swimming events, as a member of the Swimming Team. " Mr. 
however , did not identify the international swimming events in which the Petitioner 
competed 
in races above the junior level as a member of the national team , and the record does not include 
evidence differentiating his results from team members such as Mr. , Mr. and Mr. 
Furthermore , the record does not include a letter from the coach of the national 
team attesting to the importance of the Petitioner ' s role or explaining how his competitive results 
impacted the national team's standing in the sport. For instance, the Petitioner did not 
show that the national team garnered attention based on his top finishes at international swimming 
events. Accordingly , while the record demonstrates that the national team has a 
distinguished reputation in the sport of swimming , the Petitioner has not established that his role for the 
organization was leading or critical. 
Regarding the Petitioner 's role on the men's team, the letters from Mr. and Mr. 
and team literature are sufficient to demonstrate that he performed in a leading or critical role for his 
team as a competitive swimmer in freestyle and backstroke events. As for the team's reputation, the 
Petitioner states that' ' is a . and its athletic teams compete at level at 
Championships." The Petitioner provided academic information about from 
online rankings and reviews, but it does not mention the men's swim team or its 
reputation in the sport of competitive swimming. In addition, while Mr. asserted that 
earned "the title of Swim Team in the U.S. for the year of beating the previous 
champions from " the record does not include documentary evidence of this athletic 
.
Matter ofG-B-L-P-
ranking to support this claim. Nonetheless, the classification excludes many 
top-ranked men's swim teams from the nation's highest level athletic conferences. 
Accordingly, the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that the men's swim team has a 
distinguished reputation. The Petitioner therefore has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 119-20.6 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 level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fG-B-L-P-, ID# 439916 (AAO June 28, 2017) 
6 
In addition, as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(I )(A)(i) of the Act, we 
need not detennine whether he is coming to ''continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" under section 
203(b )(I )(A)(ii). 
9