dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

MATTER OF M-H-P-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 27, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a beach volleyball player, 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)(l)(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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not met any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
she must meet at least three, and that she had not provided sufficient evidence of her plan to work in 
the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that she meets three criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(] )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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. 
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 
.
Matter of M-H-P-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award) . Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that me_ets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether 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. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 l 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); R(jal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 20!0) . 
II. ANAL YSlS 
A. Continuous Work in the Area of Extraordinary Ability 
As an initial matter, the Director held that the Petitioner had not established that she had the financial 
means and plans to work as a self-employed volleyball player to substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. On appeal, she cites section 203(b )( I )(A) of the Act which states that the 
petitioner must show that she seeks to enter the United States "to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability." She then highlights her statement in the record which indicates that she 
intends to play volleyball in the U.S. domestic tour and to coach and work at youth volleyball clinics 
and workshops "to continue to promote and popularize the sport at all levels of amateur 
competition." We find that this statement sufficiently meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204 .5(h)(5) which allows the petitioner to submit a statement "detailing plans on how he or she 
intends to continue his or her work in the United States ." Therefore, we withdraw the Director' s 
finding in this regard and conclude that the Petitioner has met this requirement. .J 
B. Major International Award 
The Petitioner asserts that she has received a major, internationally recognized award under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) in that she was awarded the 
Top Rookie award in 2015 1 and the _____ Most Improved Player award in 2017.2 The 
1 The documentation in the record demonstrates that the Petitioner received the Top Rookie award for 2014. 
2 We note that the Petitioner originally claimed that a number of her medals and competitive victories also constituted 
2 
.
Malter of M-H-P-
Director failed to address the Petitioner's claims, indicating only that the evidence failed to establish 
receipt of a major international award. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the Director's error 
necessitates a remand. However, we exercise de nova review of all issues of fact, law, policy, and 
discretion. See Malter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). This means that we look at the 
record anew and are not required to defer to findings made in the initial decision. Furthermore, our 
decision may address new issues that were not raised or resolved in the prior decision. Thus, we 
may address the Petitioner's claims on the instant appeal. 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one­
time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. l O 1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted 
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. The House Report specifically cited to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement; other examples which enjoy major, 
internatio ·nal recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and an Olympic 
Medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel 
Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless 
of the nationality of the awardees, reflects a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large 
cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time 
achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the exam.pie provided by 
Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the field as one of 
the top awards. 
Here, the Petitioner states that the consists of 221 member federations and that every year it 
grants most valuable player and individual awards in seven categories. Although the record contains 
some general information about the it lacks details about the specific awards the Petitioner 
received. While the appears to be an international organization, the record does not establish 
that its awards receive international recognition. The articles in the record, which appear to be only 
from Canadian sources, do not indicate international coverage of the Petitioner's receipt of the 
awards. She did not present evidence, for example, establishing that the competitions or awards are 
widely reported by international media, are recognized by the general public, or garner attention 
comparable to other major, globally recognized awards such as Olympic medal winners . 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets the requirements of a one-time 
achievement. 
Additionally, the Petitioner indicates that the maintains its own database and ranking system 
just as international sports organizations or major leagues do, noting that she is ranked second. 
While we note the value of rankings in the context of athletic competitions, the record does not 
establish that a ranking constitutes a major, internationally recognized award. 
major; international awards. As she does not raise those claims on appeal, we will not consider them. 
3 
.
Matter of M-H-P-
C. Evidentiary Criteria 
As an alternative to demonstrating that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director held that she had not met any of these criteria . On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
she meets the following criteria: awards, membership, published material, original contributions of 
major significance and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (v), and 
(viii) . Upon review, we conclude that the evidence in the record does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner meets the requirements of at least three criteria . 
Documentation of the alien ·s receipt of lesser nationally or internalionally recognized prizes 
or awards.for excellence in the.field of endeavor . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) . 
The Petitioner submitted evidence indicating that in 2017 she won a gold and bronze medal at two 
competitions. The record also contains a list of her statistics from the Beach 
Volleyball Database indicating that from 2009 through 2017 she has won three silver medals as well 
as two other bronze medals at events . The record contains articles from CBC Sports and the 
Toronto Star about the Petitioner and her receipt of the gold and bronze medals at the events in 
2017. One of these articles references the gold medal she and her partner won in 2017 and states, 
"The gold is Canada's fourth overall on the international circuit since the formation of the women's 
in 1992." Together with the other media coverage in the record, the Petitioner has 
established that these awards are nationally recognized. Accordingly, the record establishes that she 
meets this criterion . 
Documenlalion of the alien ·s membership in associations in the .field.f<.>r which cfassffication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members. as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or.field'i. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion due to being a competitor in the 
. In a letter from the beach high performance director for 
he indicates that the Petitioner "has represented in the 
in 38 different tournaments since 201 l." He states that nominates 
athletes to compete on the based on their ability as a beach volleyball player." 
However, the record does not contain information about and the selection criteria 
it uses to detennine which players it nominates to compete or the qualifications of those judging the 
athletes . Therefore, the Petitioner has not establishedthat this association requires outstanding 
achievements of its members for membership as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the field. 
The Petitioner also claims that she meets this criterion due to her membership in the The 
Director held that she had not established this, noting that the regulations do not indicate that 
membership is based on the judging of members' outstanding achievements by recognized national 
or international experts . On appeal, the Petitioner states that "the is comprised of the top 
4 
.
Maller of M-H-P-
professional players in the field that have World Championship ranking ." She references the 
regulations in the record and asserts that only members of a state federation's national team are 
eligible to play in events. 
The record contains the regulations for the 
regulations state the following : 
which contradict the Petitioner's claim. The 
Any player who fulfils the requirements of the rules on nationality, age, gender and 
other criteria established by (and/or IOC, where applicable), is eligible for 
participation in competitions, including the and qualifying 
tournaments, on the condition that he complies with the principles of affiliation 
established by the respective ____ and fulfils the conditions set out in 
these regulations. 
We note that this regulation does not state that it requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
Instead, it indicates that one of the eligibility rules is that the individual must comply with the 
principles established by the The record does not contain the rules of the 
Canadian national team, the in this case . Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established that membership in the or the national team requires outstanding achievements of 
its members as judged by nationally or internationally recognized judges. The Petitioner has not 
established 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 classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title. date. and author of the material, and any necesscuy translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) . 
The record contains articles about the Petitioner relating to her work in the field published by CBC 
Sports, the National Post, and the Toronto Star with sufficient evidence demonstrating that these 
publications constitute major media . Therefore, the Petitioner has established that she meets this 
criterion . 
Evidence of the alien ·s original scienlffic. scholarly , artislic. athletic . or business-related 
contribUlions o,f major sign[ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) . 
Under this regulatory criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that her contributions are original 
and scientific, scholarly, artistic , athletic, or business-related in nature . She must also establish that 
the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project 
or to.an organization . The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and thus has meaning. See 
Silverman v. Eastrich Mulliple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F.3d 28, 3 I (3d Cir. I 995), quoted in APWU 
v. Potier, 343 FJd 619, 626 (2d Cir. 2003). "Contributions of major significance" connotes that the 
petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. See Visinscaia. 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. 
5 
.
Matter qf M-H-P-
The· Petitioner states that she meets this criterion due to her contributions to the field of volleyball 
that have been honored nationally in Canada and internationally by the . The Director 
held that she had not established that her work is original and that it has greatly influenced the field 
of beach volleyball. The Petitioner asserts that such reasoning "would eliminate from consideration 
any top level professional athlete from qualifying for [extraordinary ability classification]." We note 
that this is one of the ten criteria where a petitioner must meet at least three. While not all 
professional athletes may be able to establish that they have original, athletic contributions that are 
of major significance in the field, this does not preclude them from qualifying for this classification 
· through the other criteria. Here, the regulation requires that the Petitioner has made original, athletic 
contributions, which are shown through the impact their contributions have in the field. This is more 
than showing a petitioner's recognition in the field or the contributions to their team .as indicated by 
. the Petitioner. As stated above, the Petitioner must show that she has made original contributions 
that are at the level of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner claims that the record establishes her second place ranking, her Top Rookie and 
Most Improved Player awards, and that she is '"considered universally to be one of the few star beach 
volleyball players ever produced by the High Performance (professional) program of the Canadian 
national federation." She states that the evidence of her awards, the media articles, and her ranking 
demonstrate that her work is "exceptional and important." The Petitioner also relies on two letters· 
from coaches familiar with her playing. While these letters discuss her awards and her abilities as a 
player, they do not identify any original contribution made by the Petitioner or discuss what impact 
her accomplishments have had on the field. We find that the evidence of the Petitioner's awards and 
media coverage reflect honors that she has received, but they do not equate to original contributions 
in the field becausethey do not reflect what aspects of her work amount to original contributions or 
reflect the influence or impact she has had on others in the field. Therefore, the record does not 
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. 8 C.F.R. § io4.5(h)(3)(viii). 
For a leading role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner is or was a leader.3 If a critical 
role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. A supporting role may 
be considered "critical" if the petitioner's performance in the role is or was important in that way. It 
is not the title of the petitioner's role, but rather her performance in the role that determines whether 
the role is or was critical. 4 
3 See USCIS Policv Memorandum PM-602-0005.1. Ern!uation of' Evidence S11b111irted with Certain Fom1 1-140 .. . . . 
f'e1itio11s; Revisions 10 the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFMj Chapler 22.1, AFM Update ADI 1-1-110 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.useis.gov/sites/defau lt/fi les/U SC IS/La ws/Memoranda/i-I 40-evidence-pm-6002-00 5-1 . pd f. 
4 Id. at I 0. . 
6 
.
Malter of M-H-P-
The Petitioner initially claimed that the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for as a 
competitor on the and as an alternative athlete to represent Canada at the 2016 
The Director noted that the Petitioner's role as a player for the Canadian high performance 
beach volleyball program and the Canadian professional beach team represent transitory roles that do 
not correlate with a leading or critical role to an organization. Furthennore, the Director found that the 
letters in the record did not demonstrate how her roles differentiated her from other team members. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not clearly identify what her role she performed for any organization . 
Rather, she states that she "has risen to the top of the ranks of professional volleyball players," that she 
"has played in 50 World Tour events and has placed in the top 9 spots 34 times." Much of the 
evidence the Petitioner refers to in her brief relates to her competitive successes, but the record does not 
establish how her role was leading or critical. For example, she·claims that she and her partner "are 
Canada's best beach volleyball players currently in the game," and that they are preparing for the 2020 
However, the letter from her coach, does not explain her role or impact on 
the team beyond stating that "her ability to adjust and refine her already impressive skill sets, is a big 
reason why our team was able to reach the semi-finals in seven out of the eight events we competed in; 
winning one event and earning a medal in 4 of the total events played .... " While we recognize the 
successes the Petitioner has had, she has not demonstrated that the Canadian high performance beach 
volleyball program and the Canadian professional beach team possess a distinguished reputation. 
Further, she has not shown that her role on these teams constituted positions as a leader or that her role 
was of significant importance to the outcome of the organization's activities to correlate with a critical 
role. Therefore, the record has not established that she meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying 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). Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination . Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 . 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-H-P-, ID# 1740180 (AAO Nov. 27, 2018) 
7