dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

• 
MATTER OF A-M-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 22, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM l'-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a bodybuilding promoter, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those 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 of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief maintaining that 
he meets at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states in pertinent part: 
(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)
Matter of A-M-A-
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. US CIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers~ 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011), af('d, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the president of the 
and vice president of the As the Petitioner has not 
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). In denying the Petition, the 
Director found that that the Petitioner did not meet any of these criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains that he meets the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership 
criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the published material criterion under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the judging criterion under criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the artistic 
display criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), and the leading or critical role criterion under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record of proceedings, and it 
does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of at least three 
criteria. 
1 The record ·contains variations of the name for this association, but we will refer to it as 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-A-
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
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 contends that "under his patronage, the team founded, developed, 
promoted/managed and coached by him won numerous international awards including world 
championships." The Petitioner provided screenshots showing finishes of individual and team 
competitors at various competitions under the auspices of the 
and the As this criterion 
relates to the Petitioner's own receipt of prizes or awards, the accomplishments of athletes that he 
promoted, coached, or managed do not fall under this criterion but will be addressed under the 
original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).3 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he has received any prizes or awards as a bodybuilding 
promoter. While the record includes a Certificate of Achievement from for "placing among 
the top finalists" as the " the document does not identify the competition 
to which it relates. In addition, the record does not demonstrate that this certificate constitutes a 
nationally or internationally recognized award. For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not met 
his burden of demonstrating eligibility for this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which class(fication 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). 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that he meets this criterion based on his membership with the 
and The record contains evidence 
confirming his membership and involvement with each association. The Petitioner, however, did not 
submit documentation, such as the associations' bylaws, showing that these memberships require 
outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts consistent with 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Without such documentation, 
evidence of his memberships is insufficient to meet this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien 's work in the fieldfor which class~fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
2 
We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) 12 (Dec. 22, 2010), http://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy­
memoranda. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-A-
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that he presented articles demonstrating his role as a promoter and 
organizer of In order to meet this criterion, Petitioner must submit published material about 
him and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. Furthermore , the regulation requires the title, date, author, and necessary translation. 
The record contains uncertified English language translations of articles from 
and The 
uncertified translations do not comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
I 03.2(b)(3).' As the 
Petitioner did not submit properly certified translations , we cannot determine whether the evidence 
supports his claims. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not include the authors for the articles as 
required by 
this regulatory criterion. 
Notwithstanding these deficiencies, it appears that two of the articles ( and 
are about the Petitioner relating to his work. The uncertified translation of 
states that "[t]his Magazine was special about founder 
Regarding the uncertified translation reflects that "[t]his 
weekly Magazine is Famous in Iran about with version Print 
in Each week." The Petitioner did not provide evidence to support these statements or otherwise 
show that and are professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. Statements made without supporting documentation are of 
limited probative value and are not sufficient to meet the Petitioner 's burden of proof. See Matter of 
So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal?fornia, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm 'r 1972)). 
The other articles in the record discuss the results of various bodybuilding competitions in which the 
Petitioner is either not mentioned or is simply credited with being the manager or president of the 
association. Articles that are not about the petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., 
Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at * 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a 
finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this regulatory 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 specification for which class(fication is sought. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
4 The Petitioner ' s role will be addressed under the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
5 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b)(3) requires that any foreign language document must be submitted with 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. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-A-
The record contains evidence reflecting that the Petitioner served as a bodybuilding judge at various 
competitions, such as the m 
Hungary and the m Spain. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner established that he meets this criterion . 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner refers to several recommendation letters as evidence of his eligibility for 
this criterion. As a preliminary matter, we note that review of those letters reflects distinctly similar 
language. For instance, each of the letters includes language similar to the following: 
[The Petitioner's] extraordinary ability unequivocally indicates that he is one of that 
small percentage of individuals who has risen to the very top of his field. His 
extraordinary skills and reputation had led to sustained National and international 
acclaim and his achievements are recognized and highly covered in this industry.6 
In addition, the letters also include variations of this statement: 
In a career spanning over twenty years, [the Petitioner] has produced and directed the 
most popular Entertainment programs in Iranian television such as : 
TV Program & , 3D Animation, TV Serials, Reality 
show & Documentary Films. His invocative techniques are considered of major 
significance in the television industry in Iran. 7 
We also note for the record that the letters from 
board member for 
(general manager for and 
reflect this addition to the above-cited 
material: "[ elaborate name of the major projects]" thereby suggesting that the letters were pre­
populated and prepared on behalf of the author rather than based on his personal knowledge or 
opinion. Cf Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 438 F.Jd 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006) 
(upholding an immigration judge's adverse credibility determination in asylum proceedings based in 
part on the similarity of some of the affidavits); Mei Chai Ye v. US. Dept. of Justice, 489 F.Jd 517, 
519 (2d Cir. 2007) (concluding that an immigration judge may reasonably infer that when an asylum 
applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is the common source). As such, the 
letters possess diminished probative value. In evaluating the evidence, the truth is to be determined 
not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. Irt addition, 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 (Comm'r 
1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a 
6 See 
7 See 
letter. 
letter. 
5 
(b)(6)
I 
I 
Matter of A-M-A-
foreign national's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. Based on the extensive similarities between 
the above letters, USCIS may accord them less weight. 
Apart from the questions raised by identical wording appearing in multiple letters, they do not show 
how the Petitioner's contributions have had a significant effect. For example, the letters do not 
describe the Petitioner's "invocative techniques" or how they are considered of major significance to 
bodybuilding. While the letters state that the Petitioner produced and directed "the most popular 
Entertainment programs in Iranian television," the record does not include sufficient documentation 
to corroborate those statements. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; US CIS may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the foreign national's eligibility. USCIS may even give less weight to an 
opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. See 
id. at 795; see also A1atter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion 
testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). See also Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Further, repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy a petitioner's burden of 
, proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 
(2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 
1997). Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756. Inc. v. The U.S. 
Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Accordingly, the content of the letters is 
insufficient to establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
As previously discussed under the awards criterion, the Petitioner indicated that he promoted 
bodybuilders who competed and received awards in bodybuilding events. Although the Petitioner 
provided a list of awards and competitions, he submitted screenshots that only corroborated a few of 
the award claims. For example, the Petitioner's list indicated that finished in 
place at the in Iran; however the record 
does not contain evidence to support this claim. Statements made without supporting documentation 
are of limited probative value and are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
With respect to the awards that were corroborated, the Petitioner did not establish how he 
contributed to, or how his promotions resulted in, the bodybuilders receiving awards. Regardless, 
the Petitioner has not shown the significance of the named competitions or demonstrated the 
influence of his promoting work in the field beyond the individual athletes with whom he worked. 
See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this 
criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). Without supporting 
evidence, the Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that he has made original contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-M-A-
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the .field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner claims on appeal that his directing and producing of the 
on and his promoting of the 
in competitions broadcasted on television channels throughout the world meet this 
regulatory criterion. Although the Petitioner submitted evidence relating to licensing and 
broadcasting rights for the Petitioner offered no evidence to support his claim regarding the 
showing of on television channels throughout the world. Unsupported statements are of 
limited probative value and are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter o.fSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter o.fTreasure Craft ofCal?fornia, 14 I&N Dec. at 
190). 
In order to demonstrate eligibility for this criterion, the Petitioner must show that his work was on 
display, and the venues were artistic exhibitions or showcases. 8 Here, the Petitioner has not 
established that his work for these programs was of an artistic nature, or that the programs 
themselves constituted artistic venues. Accordingly, the Petitioner does not meet the plain 
language 
of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishm~nts that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he performed in a leading or critical role as founder and 
president of founder and general manager for founder 
and representative for the and vice president and representative for In general, a 
leading role should be apparent by its position in the organizational hierarchy and the role's 
matching duties. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the Petitioner submitted sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that he performed in a leading role for these organizations. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), however, also requires the 
organizations or establishments to have a distinguished reputation. Although the Petitioner states on 
appeal that they have distinguished reputations, he does not provide an explanation or refer to 
documentation supporting that statement. The record of proceedings does not contain, for example, 
evidence reflecting their standings in the field, so as to reflect distinguished or eminent reputations 
consistent with the requirements of this regulatory criterion. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not 
met his burden of demonstrating his eligibility under this criterion. 
8 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1 , supra, at 9. 
7 
Matter of A-M-A-
B. Summary 
As explained above, the record satisfies only one of the regulatory criteria. As a result, 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 listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the filings 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 individual "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), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although we 
need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the 
record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise 
required for the classification sought. 
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-M-A-, ID# 96335 (AAO Nov. 22, 2016) 
8