dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

idmtifyiag dstn deleted to 
p.;cy:i;! c i-ur!y unwmmted 
islv81siar LJ~ pr;3152l ?rit:ac\ 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
LIN 06 172 51247 
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. fj 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 3 103.5 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). 
V shn F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was initially approved by the 
Director, Nebraska Service Center. On Wer review of the record, the director determined that the 
petitioner was not eligible for the benefit sought. Accordingly, the director issued a Notice of Intent 
to Revoke the approval of the petition. In a Notice of Revocation, the director ultimately revoked the 
approval of the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. The matter 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in athletics. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualifjr 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 he meets at least three of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he qualifies for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1155, states, in pertinent part, that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval 
of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
Regarding the revocation on notice of an immigrant petition under section 205 of the Act, the Board 
of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, . . . this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa petition is 
properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record at the time the 
notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the visa petition 
based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The decision to revoke will 
be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the decision is rendered, including any 
evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention to 
revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
By itself, the director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. Id. The approval of a visa petition 
vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary 
step in the visa application process. Id. at 589. The beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the 
petition, entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
Page 3 
(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 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (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 have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
 8 C.F.R. $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. $ 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on May 8, 2006, seeks to classif4r the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a wrestler. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $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 criteria at 8 C.F.R. $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. $ 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria.' 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in thefield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing, inter alia, that he placed first in international wrestling 
competitions such as the Canada Cup (2002) and the Stepan Sargsyan loth International Tournament 
in Armenia (2005). As such, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classiJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order 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. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here 
is membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
Wrestling Federation of Georgia, stating that the petitioner is a member of the national freestyle 
wrestling team. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a November 5, 2007 letter from era1 
Secretary, National Wrestling Federation of Georgia, stating: "[The petitioner] is a member of the 
Olympic Team, which will participate in the freestyle wrestling in the Olympic Games of Beijing of 
2008." The petitioner's alleged membership on the Georgian Olympic team for the Beijing 
Olympics post-dates the filing of the petition. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. 
Cornmr. 1971). Subsequent developments in the petitioner's wrestling career cannot retroactively 
establish that he was eligible as of the petition's filing date. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider 
the petitioner's 2008 Olympic team membership in this proceeding.2 
Membership on an Olympic team or a major national team such as a World Cup soccer team can 
serve to meet this criterion. Such teams are limited in the number of members and have a rigorous 
selection process. We reiterate, however, that it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate at the time of 
filing that he meets every element of a given criterion, including that he is a member of a team that 
requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts. We will not presume that every national "team" is sufficiently exclusive. In this instance, 
there is no evidence regarding the selection process and requirements for membership on the 
Georgian national freestyle wrestling team. As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets 
this criterion. 
Nevertheless, we note that the petitioner's name is not listed among the participating athletes on the "official website of 
the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games." See http:llresults.beiiing2008.cnMRM/ENG/BIO/AthIete/G.shtmI, accessed on 
January 30,2009, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 5 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the jeld for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualifL as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.3 
The petitioner submitted two articles printed in Lelo in June and August of 1996. The English language 
translations of these articles were incomplete. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3), any document 
containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language 
translation that 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. Without 
full English language translations of the articles, it cannot be established that they were about the 
petitioner. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published material be "about 
the alien" relating to his work in the field. An article that only mentions the petitioner's name in 
passing does not meet this requirement. Further, the author of these articles was not provided as 
required by the plain language of hs regulatory criterion. Finally, there is no evidence (such as 
circulation statistics) showing that Lelo qualifies as professional or major trade publication or some 
other form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets 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 alliedjeld of speciJcation for which classijcation is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204,5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence 
of the petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The 
weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, 
depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. 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 
3 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 6 
top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a national competition for 
top athletes is of far greater probative value than judging a regional youth competition. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a March 6, 2007 letter 
from Omzar Shoshitashvili stating: "Besides a high wrestling manners [sic] [the petitioner] also was 
a fine referee. In 2004 he became a national category referee." There is no evidence (such as 
official competition rules) showing that serving as a wrestling "referee" is tantamount to 
participation as a judge of others in his sport. Even if the petitioner were to establish that refereeing 
a wrestling match is tantamount to judging others in his field, there is no evidence demonstrating his 
participation as a referee. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm. 1972)). There is no evidence showing the names of the competitors evaluated by the 
petitioner, their level of wrestling expertise, the dates of competition, the specific competitive 
categories he judged, and the level of acclaim associated with judging those categories. Without 
evidence showing, for example, that the petitioner's activities involved judging top athletes in 
national level competition or were otherwise consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that he performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment 
with a distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire 
organization or establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
In response to the director's notice of intent to revoke, the petitioner submitted World Championship 
freestyle wrestling medal count summaries from 2002 to 2006 showing that the Georgian national 
team has a distinguished reputation. 
states: 
role for the Georgian national team, the November 5, 2007 letter from 
"[The petitioner] is the best sportsman on the National Team of 
and has made his country famous for many times. He is a multiple 
champion of Georgia, a world-prize winner and a multiple winner of the international tournaments." 
The preceding statements are not sufficient to establish that the petitioner's role as a team member 
was leading or critical. Mr. letter and the other letters of recommendation submitted 
by the petitioner do not provide specific information differentiating his role from that of the other 
national team members. For example, the record lacks evidence comparing the petitioner's results at 
wrestling competitions to those of the other members of the team (such as a comprehensive tally of 
tournament medals) during the years he competed. As stated previously, going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 158, 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N at 190). Without objective evidence showing that the petitioner's achievements 
differentiated him from those of his team members, we cannot conclude that he was responsible for 
Page 7 
his team's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role" 
and indicative of national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has established that he meets only one of the regulatory criteria, three of 
which are required to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three 
of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Beyond the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 4 204,5(h)(3), the petitioner submitted several 
recommendation letters praising his talent as wrestler and summarizing his tournament victories. 
The petitioner's competitive victories have already been addressed under the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(i). The recommendation letters, while not without weight, cannot form the 
cornerstone of a successfiul extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Cornrnr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate 
the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. Thus, the 
content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are 
important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
achievements and recognition that one would expect of an athlete who has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
While recommendation letters can provide usell information about an alien's qualifications or help in 
assigning weight to certain evidence, such letters are not a substitute for objective evidence of the 
alien's achievements and recognition as required by the statute and regulations. The nonexistence of 
required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 
 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
 Further, the 
classification sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international 
acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing the statute provides that the 
"intent of Congress that a very hgh standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this 
regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for 
lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Primary evidence of achievements 
and recognition is of far greater probative value than opinion statements. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
Page 8 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
As always, the burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. The burden remains with the petitioner in revocation proceedings to 
establish eligibility for the benefit sought under the immigration laws. Matter of Cheung, 12 I&N 
Dec. 715 (BIA 1968); Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. at 452 n. 1; Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 589. 
Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.