dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

(b)(6)
DATE: FEB 2 5 2015 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
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, as a mountain 
climber, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A), which makes visas available to aliens 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 determined that the 
petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which 
requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets the criteria under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii) and (iii). The petitioner further asserts that her entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. For the reasons discussed below, we agree 
with the director that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the exclusive classification 
sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who is at the very top in the field of endeavor, 
and that she has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). 
Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 H.R. 723 101st 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. !d.; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the alien's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the alien's achievements in the field 
through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If 
the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient qualifying 
evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Rijal v. 
USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of 
Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 
(D.D.C. 2013) (finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 3 76 (AAO 201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner, as initial evidence, may present 
evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, 
the petitioner has not asserted or shown through her evidence that she is the recipient of a major, 
internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, as initial 
evidence, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations 
at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner claims 
to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
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). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because m 
received a first place award in the lead category of the 
· ·--- - · National Open Climbing Competition organized by the 
she 
As supporting evidence, the petitioner has submitted an award certificate, noting that she 
"secur[ed] 1st position in Lead category of National Open Climbing Competition." The 
competition rules reflect that there are two categories, lead and speed. According to 
Chief Administrative Officer, all interested 
candidates may participate in the competition. The petitioner has not shown that her first place 
award in the lead category is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of 
mountain climbing or that members of the field generally, beyond the competition organizer, 
recognize the award. The evidence submitted to show the recognition of the petitioner's award is 
from the entity that issued the award. Such self-promotional evidence has limited evidentiary value 
in establishing recognition beyond that entity. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-5105 SJO 10 (C.D. 
Cal. July 6, 2007), aff'd, 317 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that we did not have to rely 
on the promotional assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major 
media). The petitioner has not supported the self-promotional evidence with more independent 
evidence, such as, but not limited to, independent journalistic coverage of the competition, or 
the petitioner's first place finish in the lead category, in nationally or internationally circulated trade 
publications or major media. 
Moreover, the petitioner has not demonstrated the competitiveness of the lead category in the 
competition. According to President of the _ 
the competition is held annually with 50 participants. The petitioner, however, has not 
provided information on how many of the 50 individuals participated in her category in 
Finally, the record includes a number of certificates relating to the petitioner's other achievements in 
the field. On appeal, however, the petitioner has not asserted that these certificates constitute 
nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes for excellence. Accordingly, the petitioner 
has abandoned this issue, as she did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. United States Att y 
Gen. , 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 
4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court found the plaintiffs 
claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). In addition, with the exception of the 
petitioner's first position finish in the National Open Climbing Competition in 
these certificates certify the petitioner's climbing training and experience. They are not prizes or 
awards. The petitioner has also not shown that the certificates, including the one from the 
National Open Climbing Competition, are nationally or internationally recognized. The 
record also includes evidence that the petitioner received a U.S. National Outdoor Leadership School 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
(NOLS) scholarship in In general, scholarships do not meet this criterion, because they are 
awarded to allow a recipient to further her studies in a particular field. Scholarships are not 
generally awards or prizes for excellence in the field. Rather, they are given to recipients who have 
shown potential to advance in the field. . The petitioner has also not shown that the NOLS 
scholarship is nationally or internationally recognized. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of her receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classific ation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fie lds. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On a peal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion because she is a member of the 
She also notes that she is an instructor with the association. She 
further asserts that there "are structured criteria for membership" and "membership is voted upon by 
an executive committee of the organization." The petitioner has not shown that she meets this 
criterion. 
First, the petitioner has not shown that she is a member of the . 
_ 
She submitted a March 3, 2013 letter from stating that the petitioner is registered as 
a Senior Support Climber with the association. The petitioner has also submitted a 
Identity Card stating that she is registered as a Senior Support Climber 
by the _ The petitioner has not shown that being registered as a 
Senior Support Climber makes her a member of the association. According to Chapter 3 of the 
association's constitution, there are five membership types - general member, company member, 
associated member, lifetime member and honorary member. The petitioner has not submitted any 
evidence from the association stating that she holds one of the five types of membership. 
Second, in response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the petitioner asserted that she is a 
general member of the 
_ 
Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Regardless, the petitioner 
has not shown that the association requires outstanding achievements from its general members. 
Chapter 3, Articles 3 and 9, of the association's constitution provide certain membership 
requirements, and note that someone who has "been active regularly for five years in the sector of 
mountaineering tourism," or someone who has "completed the training on high mountaineering and 
been active in the mountaineering tourism" meets the general membership qualification. The 
petitioner has not shown that these requirements, which relate to training and experience in 
mountaineering, constitute outstanding achievements. In addition, although Chapter 3, Article 12, of 
the association's constitution provides that the associations' central executive committee or the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
executive committee of the concerned branch has the authority to grant general membership status, 
the petitioner has not shown that individuals on either committee are recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields, as required by the plain language of the criterion. 
Finally, although the petitioner has presented evidence of her qualification as an instructor, she has 
not presented evidence showing that there is a separate and distinct membership category for 
instructors in the Licensure or certification to work as an 
instructor is relevant for a lesser classification, aliens of exceptional ability under section 203(b )(2) 
of the Act. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). The petitioner has not demonstrated that licensure or 
certification is equally relevant to the classification sought in this proceeding. Regardless, the 
petitioner has not shown that the association requires outstanding achievements for certification as 
an instructor, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields, 
as required by the plain language of the criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted documentation of her membership in associations in 
the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the fie ld for which classific ation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5( h)(3)(iii). 
The director concluded in his decision that the petitioner met this criterion based on an article in 
_ 
The evidence in the record does not support this conclusion. We may deny an 
application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the law even if the 
director does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See Spencer 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that 
we conduct appellate review on a de novo basis). The petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion 
because "[a]rticles about [the petitioner] have appeared in major media in ' As supporting 
evidence, the petitioner points to a article entitled ' 
The petitioner has not shown that she 
meets this criterion. 
First, the petitioner has not shown that. is a Qrofessional or major trade publication or 
major media. According to a March 21, 2014 letter from Editorial Manager of 
is a pioneering media house with more than 12 years in the lifestyle 
journalism publication business. With 9 publications covering themes such as culture, Adventure 
Sports, lifestyle to fashion and entrepreneurship, each of _j various monthly and weekly 
publications has a minimum print count of 20,000 copies." The petitioner has not provided any 
additional information relating to this magazine. The petitioner has not shown that the focus or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
nature of the such that it constitutes a professional or a trade publication. The 
petitioner has also not shown that a print volume of 20,000 copies in an unspecified time period, i.e., 
in a month or in a week, qualifies the magazine either as a major trade publication or major media. 
As such, although the article ' 
is about the petitioner, relating to her work, the petitioner has not shown that the 
material is published in a professional or major trade publication or major media. 
Second, as part of her initial filing, the petitioner submitted other material that she asserted met this 
criterion. In the RPE, the director concluded that the article in was not about the 
petitioner. The petitioner has not contested that conclusion in response to the RPE or on appeal and 
the record supports the director's conclusion. Moreover, the petitioner has not submitted evidence 
showing that this material has been published in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. In addition, the petitioner has not submitted a translator's certification as required 
under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3) for any foreign language material.2 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted published material about her in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media, relating to her work in the field for which classification is 
sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has submitted a number of reference letters in support of her petition. Although the 
reference letters discuss the petitioner's character and confirm her skills and abilities as a mountain 
climber, they do not specifically address any of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations 
at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the director that the 
petitioner has not submitted the requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of 
the ten regulatory criteria. Having reached this conclusion, we need not review the director's finding 
that the petitioner's entry into the United States would not substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
III. 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 his or her field of endeavor. 
2 The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3) provides, "Translations. Any document containing foreign language 
submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as 
complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign 
language into English." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
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 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 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 111 9-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence on which the petitioner relies 
on appeal in the aggregate, a single award, one membership and one article, supports a finding that 
the petitioner has not demonstrated, through the submission of extensive evidence, the level of 
expertise required for the classification sought? 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 20 13). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 P.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.P.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).