dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

identieing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw arrsntec! 
invasion of personal prlvacj 
U.S. Departnicrit ut Honieland Scct~rit? 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdmin~stratlve Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
SRC 08 250 50330 
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. 5 1 1 53(b)(1 )(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. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing Form 1-290B, 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. 3 103.5(a)(I)(i). 
Perry Rhew 
phiif, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on February 9, 2009, and 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. § 11 53(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 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 he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
At the time of the original filing of the petition on August 15, 2008, counsel claimed the petitioner's 
eligibility based on his "extraordinary achievements" and multiple titles in the field of jiu-jitsu and his 
experience as an instructor. Counsel never attempted to claim the petitioner's receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award, or that he meets any of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 
204.5(h)(3). On appeal, counsel claims: 
[The petitioner's] sport is jiu-jitsu, and, I believe, that his accomplishments enable to 
consider him as an "alien of extraordinary ability," according to the definition given in 
the Section 203(b)(l)(A). [The petitioner] has extraordinary abilities in athletics, and 
his achievements are proved by Certificates and medals taken at multiple competitions 
(both national and international) and rankings. The Applicant has been practicing Jiu- 
Jitsu for 10 years, and he is looking forward to continuing his competitor's career. The 
United States will be substantially benefited by acquiring a competitor of such a level. 
As counsel has failed to specify which of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) the petitioner 
purportedly meets, we have considered the evidence submitted under the criterion we find to be most 
applicable. If it is counsel's contention that the petitioner meets a particular criterion not addressed in 
this decision, he has never provided such a statement or argument in this regard. 
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 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. 5 204.5(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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. 
(j 204.5(h)(2). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following awards: 
1. A photograph of a plaque for champion at the Yamasaki Academy in the Grappling 
Challenge from November 6-7, 1999; 
2. A certificate for third place at the Seventh Pan American Jiu-Jitsu Championship for 
200 1 from the International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation; 
3. A certificate for the first place finish in the No-Gi Super Feather at the Pan American 
Championship for 2007 from the United States Jiu-Jitsu Federation; 
4. A certificate for the third place finish in the Adult Male Super Feather at the Pan 
American Championship for 2007 from the United States Jiu-Jitsu Federation; and 
5. A photograph of a medal for the Pan American No-Gi Jiu-Jitsu Championship for 2008. 
Regarding Item 1, there is no name on the plaque indicating who received the award. According to 
the petitioner's resume, the petitioner finished in second place at the Yamasaki Jiu-Jitsu 
Tournament. This tournament appears to be a local tournament rather than a national or 
international tournament. 
Regarding Items 2, 3, and 4, the director found that the petitioner failed to establish the prestige and 
stature of the Pan American Jiu-Jitsu (:hampionships'. Specifically, the director concluded that the 
petitioner failed to submit evidence of the selection criteria, if these championships were local or 
national, and the number of the participants so as to establish that prizes issued at such tournaments 
are considered nationally or internationally recognized. On appeal, the petitioner submitted 
information about the Pan American Championship from the website Wikipedia. However, there are 
no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site.2 See 
Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (gth Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we will not assign 
weight to information from Wikipedia. In addition, the petitioner submitted a "Web blog" written by 
"Caleb" regarding the 2008 Pan American Championship. This "Web blog" fails to indicate the 
source of information and the full name of the author. Since this "Web blog" appears to be for 
entertainment purposes only and is based on the opinions and experiences of the author, it lacks the 
probative value to resolve the concerns of the director. We agree with the conclusion of the director. 
The petitioner failed to establish that these championships warrant a favorable finding for this highly 
restrictive classification. 
Notwithstanding the above, regarding Item 5, counsel claims that the petitioner was awarded second 
place at the Pan American Championship No-Gi in October 2008. However, the petition was filed 
on August 15, 2008. Since the petitioner's award occurred after the filing of the petition, we will not 
consider the evidence to establish the petitioner's eligibility. Eligibility must be established at the 
I For clarification, the participation certificates submitted by the petitioner indicate that the beneficiary competed in the 
International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation's and United States Jiu-Jitsu Federation's Pan American Games of Jiu-Jitsu 
rather than the multi-sport Pan American Games. The multi-sport Pan American Games are held every four years in the 
year preceding the Olympics (2003 and 2007 in this decade) and are conducted by the Pan American Sports 
Organization. See http://www.ol~mpics.bm/~asocourses.htm and htt~:llwww.ol~muics.bm/panam~esbermuda 
teams.htm, accessed on October 22,2009, copies incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
' Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WlKIPEDlA MAKES NO GURANTEE 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. 
See htlp: zn.M ~hrpcdra.ore t%tkt Vi rh~pedra'Gc~~~d~scl~~rln~r, accessed on October 22, 2009, copy incorporated into 
the record of proceeding. 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. 
Commr. 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision 
further provides, citing Matter of Baru'ouille, 18 I&N Dec. 1 14 (BIA 198 I), that we cannot "consider 
facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted his resume indicating that he received awards at the following 
tournaments/championships: 
1. First Place Gi at the Virginia Beach Regional Championship in June 1999; 
2. First Place Gi and Third Place No-Gi at the Yamasaki Jiu-Jitsu Tournament in August 
1999; 
3. Bronze Medal Gi at the Pan American Championships in April 2004; 
4. Second Place Gi at the Virginia Beach Regional Championship in November 2005; 
5. Second Place Gi and Third Place No-Gi at the East-Coast Championship in June 2006; 
6. Second Place Gi and Third Place No-Gi at the East-Coast Championship in September 
2006; and 
7. Second Place Gi at the Grapplers Quest in February 2007. 
The petitioner, however, submitted no documentary evidence of his participation and 
accomplishment at any of these tournaments/championships. Simply going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Sqfjci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter qf 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). A petition must be filed with 
any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 5 1 03.2(b)(l). 
Regarding this criterion, the director found that the awards submitted by the petitioner did not 
constitute lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. In 
addition, the director found that the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner failed to 
establish the actual stature and prestige of the competitions, including the significance of the 
resulting awards. The petitioner failed to establish that he "is one of that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). There is no indication 
that the petitioner faced significant competition from throughout his field. 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. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 
60899.' To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) 
3 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of 
Racine, 1995 WL 1533 19 at "4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[TJhe plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a 
cornparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, 
Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent 
with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 
Page 6 
that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have risen to the 
very top of their field of endeavor." 
As it relates to his claim as an instructor, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
that any athlete he has coached or instructed has won a nationally or internationally recognized prize 
or award. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted an interview between the petitioner and NHB Gear, which was 
posted on NHB Gear's website on February 28, 2009. It is noted that NHB Gear is the petitioner's 
sponsor. Further, the petitioner failed to establish that this website is major media. Regardless, the 
petition was filed on August 15, 2008. Since the interview occurred after the filing of the petition 
(and after the director denied the petition), we will not consider the evidence to establish the 
petitioner's eligibility. As previously indicated, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. 
As it relates to his claim as an instructor, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
that he had published material about him as a coach or instructor in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted three websites indicating that the petitioner ranked 23rd in the all-time 
world grappling ratings for the advanced men's no-gi featherweight (140-149.9) division, third in the 
all-time world Brazilian jiu-jitsu brown belt featherweight (1 40- 149.9) division ratings; and second 
in the 2007 United States grappling ratings. The petitioner also submitted five recommendation 
letters praising his talents as an athlete and instructor. 
1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the 
preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Page 7 
In this case, the reference letters submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this regulatory 
criterion. We note that the above letters are all from individuals who have worked or interacted with 
the petitioner. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's role in various 
projects, they cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. The statutory 
requirement that an alien have "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of 
recognition beyond the alien's immediate acquaintances. 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. 4 204.5(h)(3). Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinion statements as expert testimony. See Matter of C'uron Internutionul, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Commr. 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 of 
support from the petitioner's personal contacts in 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 writers' 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 any immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence or original contributions of major significance that one would expect of an individual who 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
We recognize the admiration for the petitioner by his peers, however, the letters submitted on the 
petitioner's behalf do not specify exactly what the beneficiary's original athletic contributions have 
been, nor is there an explanation indicating how any such contributions were of major significance in 
his field such as that he has developed original training techniques, routines, or other methodologies 
that have been recognized, widely adopted, or otherwise significantly impacted his field in manner 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 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. We 
must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some 
meaning. Even if the techniques utilized by the beneficiary were found to be original, there is 
nothing to demonstrate that they have had major significance in the field. For example, the record 
does not indicate the extent of the beneficiary's influence on others in his sport nationally or 
internationally, nor does it show that the field has somehow changed as a result of his work. Further, 
there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's rankings or talent at the brown belt featherweight 
division are contributions of major significance to his field. According to the International Brazilian 
Jiu-Jitsu Federation's website4, the petitioner's standing as a brown belt is lower than the higher 
standings of a black and red belt. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's 
work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to 
the level of original contribution of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this 
criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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 
J 
See &tp 14 I\\\. ib(it:vrg accessed on November 5,2009, and incorporated into the record. 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
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. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.