dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

identifYing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: JUL 022012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and immigration Scrvice~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 MassachuselLs Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 V.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
cYi:-Sr 
Perry Rhew 4-
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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 
Z03(b)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C § 1153(b)(1 )(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section Z03(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § Z04.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 CF.R. § Z04.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 CF.R. § Z04.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner 
must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to 
establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets three of the regulatory criteria at 8 CF.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO upholds the director's ultimate conclusion 
that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
I. LAW 
Section Z03(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who arc 
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. 
Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USerS) 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 H.R. 723 lOIS! Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. Id.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2(10). Although the 
court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation 
of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.! With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent ·'tinal merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO·s evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated thaI ··the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sutlieient evidence, ·'the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Jd. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. Id. 
I Specifically. the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those scI forth in Ihe regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and S C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criterii 
Documentation of the alien '.I' membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged hy recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
It should be noted that counsel did not raise this claim in the initial filing, nor in response to the 
director's request for evidence, but did submit the accompanying evidence to be used to evaluate this 
criterion. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner "is an 8th degree black belt in taekwondo and 
Ssang .luI Gon (nunchucks)." Counsel also states that "there are less than 50,000 individuals 
worldwide who have been recognized with this level of expertise in taekwondo" and that reaching the 
8th Dan "requires that the member have outstanding achievements, such as championships and 
demonstrated expertise, asjudged by these high ranking masters." 
Contained in the initial filing are certificates from the Korea Ssang Jul Gon Association and the Korea 
Pro Taekwondo Association indicating that the petitioner attained the 8
th 
Dan (black belt) and a 
certificate from Kukkiwon- World Taekwondo Headquarters indicating that the petitioner attained the 
7th Dan. While these certiticates show the petitioner'S achievement, they are not indicative of 
membership. The petitioner did not submit any additional documentation regarding the requirements 
of the 7th and 8th Dans, nor proof of membership in these associations. In addition, there is no evidence 
that any of these associations require outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. Finally, the petitioner did not 
submit any accompanying evidence to corroborate counsel's above-mentioned statements. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter ofOhaighena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 
534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publicatiol1s or other major 
media. relating to the alien's work in the field Fir which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish that the evidence was qualifying. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be 
abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 20(5), citing United 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
Page 5 
States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (lith Cir. 1998); see also Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
27312011,2011 WL4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintitf's claims were abandoned 
as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Evidence oj the alien '.I participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge oj the work oj 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility. On appeal. the petitioner does not contest the director's tindings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. Id. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic. or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an unsigned statement, 
purportedly from HOKI Taekwondo, stating that the petitioner was "in charge of a Nunchuk leadership 
class." The statement also confirmed that the submitted DVD is a video session of one of the 
petitioner's classes and that the DVD was offered for sale. Finally, the statement includes information 
regarding the company's website address, establishment date and mission statement. The petitioner did 
not submit any information regarding DVD sales or influence. In the resubmitted a 
"Letter of Recommendation" with a signature from 
that the petitioner is "a well-qualified Ssang lui Gon 
(nunchaku) instructor based on his Ssang lui Gon experiences and achievements." The letter provides 
a listing of the petitioner's "experiences" and credits the petitioner with "Development of a Three­
Tiered Baton Nunchaku for Self-Defense," "Development of Training Nunchaku and Competition of 
Nunchaku," and '"Development of Nunchaku Competition Protection Equipments[sic]." On appeal, the 
petitioner submitted an unreferenced photocopy of what are assumed to be the above mentioned items, 
with no additional information to show that these items have been widely adopted, or even to support 
the claim that the petitioner was involved in the development of them. 
In addition, counsel provides information regarding nine of the petitioner's students who, counsel 
asserts, "have seen great success in the taekwondo industry" and six of whom have been "part of the 
Korean National Demonstration Team." Also submitted was a one page printout from the Kukkiwon 
website about their Demonstration Team, which states the team is comprised of "about 70 members 
who are the top Taekwondo practitioners in the world in skill and tradition." However, the record lacks 
documentary evidence regarding the selection requirements, their high skill level, nor to confirm that 
these individuals were the petitioner's students or in fact, members of the Demonstration Team. There 
are a number of letters contained in the record that reterence the petitioner's experience and skill, but 
fail to identify the petitioner's original athletic contributions to the field or provide specific examples 
of how those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field, such as 
examples of the usage of the nunchuks and protective gear which were asserted to have been 
developed by the petitioner. The petitioner failed to submit sufficient corroborating evidence, which 
Page 6 
could have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. Vague, solicited letters that do not 
specifically identify contributions or provide specific examples of how those contributions 
influenced the field are insufficient. 3 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original, but of "major significance" in the field. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous 
and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 
(3rd Cir. 1995) quuted in APWU v. Putter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2(03). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner "has competed at events and has displayed his skills" 
and that he "has contributed significantly to spread the reputation of taekwondo, not only with his 
own achievements, but by mentoring other athletes to become national and international athletes." 
The petitioner provided a "Certificate of Appreciation" from the 16th California Open International 
Taekwondo Championship referencing his "outstanding performance." Since no additional 
information or evidence was provided, the exact nature of this certificate is unclear. In response to 
the director's request for evidence, counsel stated that due to the petitioner'S "unique and outstanding 
ability" in teaching nunchuks, the petitioner has "clearly madc an original artistic [sic] contribution 
of major signiticance in the field." As noted previously, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1; Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
While the petitioner may be a skilled and supportive member of the taekwondo community who has 
trained students and competed himself, these activities do not equate to "original" athletic 
contributions of major significance. The submitted evidence does not establish that the petitioner's 
specific contributions to the field were original, such as a new method of instruction, nor that any of 
his contributions were of major significance in the field, such as the widespread adoption of his 
specific methods of instruction. 
Thus, the AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner did not submit 
documentary evidence to meet the elements of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In response to the director's request for evidence counsel asserts that the petitioner's appointments to 
three different taekwondo associations "of distinguished reputations" qualify as an "original artistic 
[sic] contribution of significance." While the submitted evidence does confirm the appointments, the 
AAO concurs with thc director who stated in her denial that the "record lacks documentary evidence to 
3 Kazarian v. USClS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th CiT. 2(09) alrd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th CiT. 2010). In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
alien's 1 contributions in the field" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
Page 7 
demonstrate that these appointments are inherently leading or critical" and that there is no 
"docwnentary evidence to establish that any of the organizations maintains a distinguished reputation in 
the field". 
On appeal, the pelIhoner submitted a brochure from the 24th Annual Fort Worth International 
Taekwondo Championships held in 2004 and the invitation letter for the event. It should be noted that 
in response to the director's request for evidence, counsel asserted that this was evidence under 8 
c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Counsel now claims that the petitioner's "leading role" in the instruction of 
Poomse (form) "was critical" to the event. While the invitation letter does state that "this seminar is 
instrumental in developing the participating athlete's skills" and that "having you instruct and lead our 
athletes" would "encourage U.S. athletes to continue our tradition of excellence,"' there is no evidence 
that distinguishes the petitioner's role from any other instructor's role at this event, nor that the 
petitioner performed a critical or leading role. Furthermore, the record does not contain any 
documentary evidence to show that this is an organization or establishment with a distinguished 
reputation. From the brochure, it appears that the tournament was open to competitors who were 
willing to pay the registration fee. Finally, it should be noted that petitioner's name does not appear 
anywhere in the program, nor is there any mention of the seminar. However, there is a special 
registration form and full page description for a seminar taught by __ the United States' 
Olympic team coach. The documentary evidence fails to reflect that the petitioner performed in a 
leading or critical role beyond that of instructor for this one event. The record contains no evidence to 
illustrate the petitioner's role within the organizational hierarchy or his impact on the organization to 
demonstrate how the petitioner'S one seminar would be considered leading or critical for the entire 
organization. As previously stated, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534; 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1; Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
" as "chief instructor for the 
and "was seminal in raising 
the reputation and recognition of the ssang jul gon as a competitive martial art." While counsel refers 
to Exhibit E, no documentation was attached. In reviewing the 
referenced "Letter of Recommendation" with a stamped signature 
stating that the petitioner is 
on Ssang Jul Gon experiences and achievements" The documentary 
evidence submitted did not provide any additional information with regard to how the petitioner's 
position as an instructor fit within the organizational hierarchy, such that it could be considered leading 
for the entire organization, nor how the petitioner's role as an instructor impacted the organization such 
that it rises to the level of a critical role for that organization. Furthermore, the record contains no 
evidence that the Korea Ssang Jul Gon Association is an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation. 
A further review of the record does show that the petitioner was appointed as 
by the World Ssang Jul Gon Federation in October 2007 with no explanation of this role or its duties. 
Page 8 
Thus, there is not any additional documentation to indicate whether the petitioner served in a critical or 
leading role, nor whether the World Ssang Jul Gon Federation is an organization with a distinguished 
reputation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
llJ. CONCLUSION 
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. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir 1 field of endeavor" and (2) ·'that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, ,. 8 CF.R. 
§§ 204.S(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the smal! percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits detennination: Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent reb'Ulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.s.C § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
'The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Sollane v. DO}, 381 F.3d at 145. In 
any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(I)(ii). See also section 103(a)(I) of the Act; 
section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1,2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 
8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BfA 1987) (holding that legacy 
INS, now uscrs, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
Page 9 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.