dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Department of fIomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
identifying data Celeted to 
 ~ishln~ton, DC 20529-2090 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
FILE: I SRC 08 085 52134 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: AUG 2 5 2009 
IN RE: 
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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.5 for the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided 
your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
103.5(a)(l)(i). 
+&&4!:k 
WActing Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center. The petition is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 4 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in athletics. 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. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had 
failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at 
least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner meets the statutory requirements and 
at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. - Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. - An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if - 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the legacy Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very 
high standard for individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 
Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary 
ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2). The specific 
requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, 
however, that the petitioner must show that she has sustained national or international acclaim at 
the very top level. 
This petition, filed on January 16, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a marathon runner. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) indicates that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of 
such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an 
alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. A 
petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting 
evidence that simply relates to at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). In 
determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be 
evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 8 
204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the following criteria under 8 
C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in thefield of endeavor. 
In his November 23, 2007 letter in support of the petition, counsel provided a list of events in 
which the petitioner allegedly competed from May 2003 to November 2007. The results 
indicated that the petitioner placed as high as lSt place to 35th place. Not all of the events were 
marathons. Counsel also indicated that the petitioner's awards included the 2004, 2005 and 2006 
New York Marathons, in which she placed 7th, 3rd, and 3rd, respectively. Counsel also stated that 
in the same races, the petitioner placed 27th, 
 and 1 8th in the "Elite" category. 
The petitioner provided copies of what counsel asserted were awards that the petitioner had 
received in various events, including the National Sport Games of Ukraine, the Olympic Day 
Run, the Marathon of the National Sport Games of Ukraine, and the National Marathon of 
Ukraine. However, all of the translations accompanying these documents were provided by 
counsel. Although counsel certifies that the documents are complete and accurate as required by 
8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(3), the translations are summaries of the accompanying documents and 
therefore do not comply with the regulation, which provides that "[alny document containing 
foreign language submitted to [USCIS] shall be accompanied by a full English language 
translation." Because counsel failed to provide a full translation as required by the regulation, the 
AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. Further, the 
documentation submitted is insufficient to establish that awards or prizes presented at any of 
these events are nationally or internationally recognized as awards or prizes of excellence in the 
petitioner's field. 
The petitioner also submitted copies of the results of several races in which she had competed, 
including the 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 New York City Marathons. The petitioner did not win 
any of these races and, despite counsel's assertions that the petitioner had third place finishes, the 
record does not demonstrate that the petitioner placed any higher than 16'~ in the female 
category. The petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that such performances are 
consistent with a national or international award or prize of excellence in her field. Further, of 
the races that she won, such as the Liberty Waterfront Half-Marathon, the petitioner submitted 
no documentation to establish that placing first in any of these competitions is nationally or 
internationally recognized as a prize or award of excellence in her field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of what counsel stated is a "master of sports certification," 
signed by the Deputy Minister of Sports on April 3, 2007. We note again that the translation 
accompanying the document was provided by counsel and appears to only be a partial 
translation. The petitioner submitted documentation from the online encyclopedia Wikpedia that 
the "Master of Sports of the USSR . . . equates to national champion." With regard to 
information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this 
open, user-edited internet site.' See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (gth Cir. 
2008). Accordingly, we will not assign weight to information for which Wikipedia is the only 
cited source. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence (WE) dated April 8, 2008, the 
petitioner submitted photographs of several medals, trophies and other awards that she stated she 
had won. As noted by the director, these awards do not identify the name of the individual 
receiving them. 
2 
 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone 
with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has 
necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, 
accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the 
information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, 
vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge 
in the relevant fields. [Emphasis in original.] 
See http:Nen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on August 4, 2009, a copy of 
which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
The petitioner also submitted documentation from Wikipedia that identifies the five "largest and 
most prestigious races [as] Boston, New York City, Chicago, London, and Berlin." As discussed 
above, information citing only Wikipedia as its source will not be accorded any weight in this 
proceeding. Further, with the exception of New York Marathon, the petitioner submitted no 
documentation that she competed in any of these races. The petitioner submitted no 
documentation to establish that the Bermuda marathons, the Cinco de Mayo 5k run, the Newark, 
NJ run, the New York City Parks Run, or any of the other races that counsel describes as "world 
class races" award prizes or awards that are nationally or internationally recognized as prizes or 
awards of excellence in the petitioner's field. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner won national prizes and awards in Ukraine, 
including winning second place in the National Summer Sport Games and second place in the 
Championship of Ukraine Marathon. The petitioner resubmitted the copy of what counsel alleges 
is an award given to the petitioner for winning second place in the National Sport Games of 
Ukraine. However, as discussed above, the translation accompanying the document, in addition 
to being translated by counsel, is a summary. Summary translations do not comply with the 
provisions of 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), which provides that documents in a foreign language must 
be accompanied by full English translations. The petitioner also resubmitted a copy of a 
September 30, 2003 certificate from the International Olympic Committee for her participation 
in the Olympic Day Run. However, the certificate does not indicate the petitioner's results in the 
race. A certificate acknowledging the petitioner's participation and "high results" is not evidence 
that she received an award or prize. 
On appeal, the petitioner also submits a copy of the results of the "Championship of Ukraine in 
marathon" in September 2003. The document indicates that the petitioner finished second in the 
female category and second in the female team results. The certificate acknowledging the 
"award" presented to the petitioner, as discussed previously, is a summary of the document 
translated by counsel. As such, the document does not comply with the provisions of 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(3). It is not clear whether the petitioner actually received an award or a certificate 
acknowledging her results. Further, even if it been adequately documented, we do not find that 
winning a single nationally recognized award is consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim or with this criterion, which requires receipt of prizes or awards. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jeld for which 
classzjcation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
To demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show 
that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, 
minimum education or work experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. The overall prestige 
of a given association is not determinative. The issue is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a November 1, 2007 letter from the Warren Street Social and Athletic 
Club (WSSAC) in which its president, that the petitioner was a top runner 
for the club. In a December 6, of the Bermuda Track and Field 
Association, stated that the petitioner was a member of the Soviet Long Distance Running Team 
and "symbolized" the team from 2005 through 2007. 
In his WE, the petitioner instructed the petitioner to provide the "minimum requirements and 
criteria" for membership in the associations in which the petitioner claimed membership. The 
petitioner submitted no additional documentation in support of this criterion in response to the 
WE or on appeal. On appeal, counsel concedes that the petitioner does not belong to any club 
that requires outstanding achievements of its members, stating that no such clubs exist in the 
petitioner's field of expertise. We concur that membership in regional associations such as the 
WSSAC is not sufficient to meet this criterion. ~urthet, the record contains no supporting 
A - 
documentary evidence to support 
 claims regaiding the petitioner's membership on 
the Soviet Long Distance 
 the petitioner has failed to establish that 
she 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 classzfication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In order to meet this criterion, published materials must be primarily about the petitioner and be 
printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major 
media, the publication should have significant national distribution and be published in a 
predominant language. Some newspapers, such as The New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of a significant national 
distribution. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of an article from the website fast-women.com, accessed by the 
petitioner on October 19, 2007. The article, posted on March 24, 2006, is an interview of the 
petitioner and one of her running partners who, according to the article, served as the petitioner's 
interpreter. The document indicates that the website is "A New York Road Runners Web Site." 
Other documentation submitted by the petitioner, such as in The Royal Gazette and The San 
Diego Union Tribune, contain photographs of the petitioner during the course of the race or 
mention her only in the context of her race results. As this criterion specifically requires an author, 
title, and translation, the publication of photographs do not qualify the petitioner under this criterion. 
Those specific requirements reference published written work instead of visual work. As such, 
these published photographs do not qualify the petitioner under this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that "other professional websites" that wrote about the petitioner 
included the New York City Marathon website, the New York Road Runners website, Runner 
magazine and This Running Town. In today's world, many news articles and printed materials, 
regardless of size and distribution, are posted on the Internet. To ignore this reality would be to 
render the "major media" requirement meaningless. We are not persuaded that international 
accessibility via the Internet by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given publication is 
"major media." The petitioner must still provide evidence, such as, a widespread distribution, 
readership, or overall interest in the publication in order to demonstrate that the publication is a 
professional or major trade publication or major media in order for us to credit these articles. The 
petitioner has not established that any of these websites constitute major media. Moreover, we 
note that photographs of the petitioner taken during her participation in various events are not 
considered published material. As this criterion specifically requires an author, title, and 
translation, the publication of photographs do not qualify the petitioner under this criterion. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner alleges for the first time on appeal that she meets this criterion based on her 
membership in the WSSAC which has already been discussed under 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(ii). We 
note that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate 
criteria exist for membership, USCIS clearly does not view these criteria as being 
interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met 
another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. 
Regardless, the petitioner has failed to establish that her membership in the WSSAC is sufficient 
to meet this criterion. 
The petitioner submits the history of the club from its website an October 2,2008 letter from its 
president, , an October 8, 2008 letter from, a copy of an article from 
the Winter 2007 edition of This Running Town about the WSSAC and , a 
document from the New York Road Runners organization website listing the WSSAC as a 
national and international running club, and additional information about the petitioner's 
competitions. 
In his April 8,2008 WE, the director advised the petitioner that: 
If the evidence includes the performance of leading or critical roles for 
organizations that have a distinguished reputation, submit evidence of the 
organization's reputation and more detailed description of the role you play[ed] in 
that organization. 
The regulation states that the petitioner shall submit additional evidence as the director, in his or 
her discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further 
information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of the 
time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(8) and (12). The failure to submit requested 
evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 
C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(14). 
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. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence 
to be considered, it should have submitted the documents in response to the director's request for 
evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency 
of the evidence submitted on appeal. Even if considered, the record lacks evidence to establish 
that as a member of a local running organization, the petitioner has performed in a leading or 
critical role for the organization and that the organization has a distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that she meets this criterion. 
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 her field of endeavor. Review of the record, 
however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small 
percentage at the very top of her field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.