dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citize nship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8096029 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precede nt Decision of the 
Admin istrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 14, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a boxer and kickboxer , seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § l l 53(b )(1 )(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through susta ined national or internationa l 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirement of either a one-time achievement or 
meeting at least three of the alternate evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). The 
Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider , which the Director granted , but he again found 
that the Petitioner met only one of the requisite three criteria. On appeal, he asserts that in addition to 
establishing his participation as a judge of the work of others in his field, the evidence shows that he 
meets an additional four criteria , and that he is eligib le as an athlete of extraord inary ability . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibi lity for the reque sted benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de novo review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 demonstra ted by sustained national or interna tional 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recogni zed in the field through 
exten sive documentation , 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to con tinue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability , and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospec tively 
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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
categories 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 
mate1ial 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. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner competes as a boxer and kickboxer and has received several awards in both spo1ts in 
his native- as well as a Master of Sports ____ aesignation in kickboxing. 
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) . As noted above, the Director found that the Petitioner met the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 3-04.5.Cb.)(3 (iv), based upon his participation as a kickboxing judge in several 
tournaments in.____ On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets an additional four 
evidentiary criteria, and submits five new reference letters. Where, as here, a Petitioner has been put 
on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that 
deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. Matter of Soriano, 
19 l&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). After reviewing 
all of the evidence previously in the record, we find that it does not establish that the Petitioner meets 
the initial evidence requirement. 
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) 
As noted above, the evidence includes copies of ce1tificates showing that the Petitioner has received 
several awards in boxing and kickboxing tournament s. The Director found in his previous decision 
that because these awards were for competition at the amateur level, thus excluding professional 
athletes, they could not be considered as quali fying awards under this criterion. On appeal, the 
Petitioner points out that only amateur boxers are allowed to compete in the Olympic Games, and 
asserts that amateur boxing is a sport "with its "own identity"" apait from professional boxing. While 
we note that several items of evidence indicate that advancing to the professiona l level is the aspiration 
of many amateur boxers, including the Petitioner, we agree that the plain language of this criterion 
does not necessar ily eliminate prizes or awards received in amateur competition from consideration. 
2 
As to whether the awards are nationally or internationally recognized, the Petitioner does not address 
this issue on appeal, but singled out some of the awards in a letter accompanying his motion to 
reconsider. He began by noting that six of the boxing tournaments were held outside of his native 
country, and that nine of them were titled as "international" tournaments. However, neither the 
location of a tomnament nor the inclusion of the term "international" in its title is a determinative 
factor when considering whether prizes or awards issued at those tournaments receive national or 
international recognition. A more relevant factor, the significance of the awards in the field, is 
addressed in a reference letter from _____________ of the Boxing Federation of 
- describes ranks that are applied to competitions "in the qualification norms 
and requirements for the types of spo1ts recognized" in - with the Olympic Games among those 
receiving a rank of I and world and European championships receiving a rank of II. Although he 
concludes that based on these classifications, "[it] can be stated with confidence that the awards won 
by [the Petitioner] have unquestionable value as awards of the highest rank on the national scale," he 
does not identify the ranking assigned to the Petitioner's awards. 1 
The Petitioner then went on to focus on two boxing awards received by the Petitioner at the 
"International - Tournament" and the ' ____ tournament," both of which occurred in Poland 
in 2015 and resulted in the Petitioner placing second in his weight class and fight category. He 
submitted two brief statements from the website bokser.org, one which states that the --•Golden 
Gloves tournament is "known throughout Europe," and another which states regarding a third 
tournament that "fans saw very high level matches." However, the record does not include information 
about this website, and the brief, vague statements posted on it are insufficient to establish the 
significance of these tournaments and awards at the national or international level. 
However, regarding the kickboxing awards, the evidence sufficiently establishes that the -
kickboxing championship in - 2013 at which the Petitioner placed in two events served as a 
qualifying tournament for the Ukrainian national team. As such, we disagree with the Director and 
find that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
classtfication 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) 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must document their membership in an association within 
their field of expe1tise, and establish not only that the association requires outstanding achievements 
of candidates as a condition of membership, but that the detennination of whether they possess the 
required outstanding achievements is done by recognized national or international experts. 
In his most recent decision, although the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's membership in the 
- Sports Club, WTKA2, and the ~ ational Kickboxing Team, he found that the record 
1 As discussed in detail further below, ______ lso states that due to his receipt of these boxing awards, the Petitioner 
received the title of Master of Sport. However, while the record includes evidence that he received the Master of Sport 
title in WTKA kickboxing, there is no evidence to corroborate claim regarding any boxing titles. 
2 Although the name of this association appears in the record as •---- ~ports Amateur Association WTKA," we take 
3 
did not include sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these groups require outstanding achievements 
of their members. He also dete1m ined that the Petitioner's "Master of Sp01ts in WTKA Kickboxing" 
title was similarly w1supported by independent and objective evidence of membership requirements. 
On appeal, the Petitioner focuses on his Master of Sports title, and refers to two previously submitted 
reference letters which describe the requirements to receive that title. The first letter was written by 
_____ i.. _____ of the - WTKA, and describes the requirements for receiving 
the Master of Sports designation, but consistently refers to it as a title rather than a membership. The 
second letter, written by as discussed above, refers to the Petitioner's boxing 
accomplishments and requirements to receive a Master of Sports in boxing, but the record does not 
include evidence to support his receipt of this title in boxing. 3 Further, neither letter mentions an 
association into which the Petitioner was granted entry as a result of being conferred this title. As 
such, the Petitioner's receipt of a Master of Sports in WTKA Kickboxing title does not meet the 
requirements of this criterion. 
In addition, while the Petitioner does not challenge the Director's revious decision regarding his 
membership on the - national kickboxing team and the ___ Sports Club on appeal, we 
agree that the evidence does not sufficiently establish that those associations require outstanding 
achievements of their members. Also, regarding the national team, we note that in an article titled ,. 
'dated ____ _, 2013, the Petitioner's victories in that tournament are verified, but he 
is not one of the three individuals named as being selected for the national team. This directly 
contradicts statement that he was a full member of the national kickboxing team from 
2012 through 2016, as well as notations in the index of the Petitioner's RFE response which indicate 
that he qualified based on these results. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, l 9 I&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). Here, although the record includes evidence that the Petitioner earned awards at 
tournaments which served as selection criteria for the national team, we note that the record lacks 
evidence of his pruticipation in any continental or world kickboxing championships, or other 
competitions, as a member of that team. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established his membership 
on the( kickboxing team, or that he otherwise 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 classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In his decision on motion, the Director found that only one of the four articles submitted by the 
Petitioner was about him, and cited to two federal district comt decisions for the proposition that media 
articles which are about a team or show of which an individual is a part are not about the individual. 
administrative notice that this appears to be the ____ chapter of the World Traditiona l Kickboxing Association, one 
of four amateur kickboxing associations appearing in the record. The others are WAKO, VfKF and TAKSA. 
3 The Petitioner claimed in his RFE response to have rece ived a Master of Sports title in both boxing and kickboxing. 
While he refers to _____ _.etter on appeal, he does not appear to continue to claim both titles. 
4 We note that although the otigina l version of this article was not initially submitted, an identical version including the 
otiginal and translation, as posted on another website and reference d below, was submitted in his RFE response. 
4 
Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) , Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV -820-
ECR-RJJ (D. Nev. Sep. 8, 2008). The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director misapplied 
Noroozi, arguing that contrary to the court 's finding in that case that the individual was mentione d "in 
passing," at least one additional article in the record goes beyond that threshold in its discussion of the 
Petitioner. That article, titled " 
--------------------------and appearing on the website www.ga lsports.com, includes multiple introductory and 
concluding paragraphs describing the competition in general , and devotes one sentence each to the 
Petitioner and eight other athletes, describing their results in the competition. As the article does not 
provide details about any of the individual athletes beyond their results in the competition , it is about 
a group of athletes from the•----------• vho competed in the national kickboxing 
championships in 2018, and is not about the Petition er. Another two articles similarly discuss other 
competition results of ' ____ . thletes" as a group , mentioning the Petitioner only to report his 
specific results , and so are also not about him. 
The one article that is about the Petitioner, which focuses on his victory in a boxing tournament in 
- in 2012, was posted on the website www.sport.if.ua. Unlike the three articles mentioned 
above, this article mentions the Petitioner in its title, and includes two paragraph s wherein his coach 
describes the Petitioner's fight and future prospects as a boxer in detail. However , the Director cited 
reliabilit y issues with articles retrieved from the Internet in general , and noted that while website traffic 
data was supplied for this domain, it was not sufficien t to establish that in comparison to other news 
or sports websites, www .sport.if.ua is a professional, major trade or other major medium. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that Internet publications "are often the sole source of information" 
and are no less reliable than traditional print publications . Although he does not provide 
documenta tion to support these assertions , these issues are not detennina tive as to whether the website 
qualifies as a major medium. Rather, as noted by the Director , comparative circulation or similar data 
is most relevant to determining whether a particular publicat ion qualifies under this criterion . The 
report supplied by the Petitioner indicates that www.s port.if.ua ranks 256,807 globally in te1ms of 
traffic, and 4,060 in Poland . However , without a comparative data showing its ranking in relation to 
similar websites based in ___ or focused on spo1ts, this evidence does not sufficiently establish 
that this website qualifie s as a major medium. In addition, we note that the trans lation of the webpage 
where this article was posted indicates that sport.if.ua is a "regional sporting Internet po1tal" and is 
therefore targeted towards a smaller readersh ip than media focusing on sports news at the national and 
international level. We therefore agree with the Directo r and find 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 
class{fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director found in his original decision that the Petitioner met this criterion, and repeated this 
finding in his decision on the Petitioner's motion to reconsider. The evidence includes a certificate 
noting that be was confened a second category judge rank in WTKA kickbo xing on 
2015 and a first category rank on ___ ...., 2016 . The other item of evidence submitted in support 
of this criterion is the reference letter from ____ _, who writes in detail regarding the role of a 
judge in WTKA kickboxing matches . However , we note that while he agrees that the Petitioner 
5 
achieved his second category judge ranking on the date indicated on the ce1tificate, he states that the 
Petitioner received the first category qualification on 2017, more than a year after the 
date indicated on the certificate. In addition, _____ reports that the Petitioner judg ed WTKA 
competitions beginning in 2012, before the evidence indicates that he had obtained any judging 
certification. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsi stencies in the record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. Here, as the record 
does not include documentary evidence of the Petitioner having perfonne d these judging duties, or an 
explanation and supporting documentation to ve1ify his qualification to perform those duties before 
being certified, the inconsistencies have not been resolved. Accordingly, we disagree with the Director 
and find that the evidence does not serve to demonstrate that he has served as a judge of the work of 
other athletes. 
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) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions to the field, but that they have been of major significance. 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. 
In his decision on the motion to reconsid er, the Director concluded that the reference letters in the 
record were not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner had made original contribut ions of major 
significance to the field of athletics, or boxing or kickboxing in paiticular. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asse1ts that the Director "appears to have ignored the extent of fame and expe1tise" of the letter writers, 
who write of his achievements as an athlete . 
Although he does not identify a specific contribution that he has made to the spo1ts of boxing and 
kickboxing in his appeal brief: the Petitioner did assert on motion that he considered winning boxing 
tournament s to be an original contribution. However, he did not, and has not, explained how his 
victories at boxing and kickboxing tournaments have contribut ed to those sports, or influenced or 
impacted them in any way. Nor do the reference letters describe any original athletic 
1
.ontcibut,ion.s, 
made by the Petitioner. r--___________ .... champion boxer and thel._ _____ J ... 
USA Boxing in th ..._ ___ .,-~etropolitan area, provides a list of some of the boxing tournaments in 
which the Petitioner received ai1 award, and offers her expert opinion that he "is a spectacula athlet 
and one of the best boxers I have had the pleasure of watching compete." While --------complement s the Petitioner 's skill as a boxer, she does not indicate that he has used this skill to make 
an original contribution to the sport that has influenced or impacted other athletes. Another boxer, 
also lists several of the Petitioner 's victories, and concludes that his 
achievements ''taken in totality definitely constitute a contribution of major significance to the field of 
boxing." Simply repeating the language of the statute or regulations without elaboration 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), ajf'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 
10729, *l , *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Regardless of the fame or expe1tis e of these letter writers, 
this eviden ce does not establish that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
6 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 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 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. 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, 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. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and that he is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(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. 
7