dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Q-W-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 1, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a table tennis player, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
had satisfied only one of the regulatory criteria, of which a Petitioner must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief stating that he 
demonstrated a one-time achievement, and he meets at least two additional criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 20S(b) of the 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 
Matter ofQ-W-
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individualfin 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.P.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.P.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. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 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. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011); Matter of 
Chawathe, 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 USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for 
relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context ofthe totality of 
the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a table tennis player who has competed in tournaments in the United States and 
China. The Director found that he met the lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) but had not achieved any of the other criteria at 8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he won a major, internationally 
recognized award under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In addition, the Petitioner states that he is eligible 
for the membership criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the published material criterion under 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and the original contributions of major significance criterion under 8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). For the reasons discussed below, the record does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner received a one-time achievement or that he meets the plain language requirements of 
at least two additional criteria he has addressed. 
A. One-Time Achievement 
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. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted 
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. The House Report sp~cifically cited to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement; other examples which enjoy major, 
2 
Matter of Q-W-
international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and (most relevant for 
athletics) 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.P.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 example 
provided by Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the 
field as one of the top awards. 
In addition, a Federal Court recently stated: 
The ... debate over what constitutes a "major" international award [is one] that 
neither party can hope to win. Common experience draws no line of demarcation 
between those awards that are "major" and those that are not. The applicable law in 
this case draws no more apparent line, other than to establish that some awards are 
"major, international recognized award[ s ]" and others are "lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards". 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) & (3)(i). 
Nothing in either the INA or the regulations implementing it explains how USCIS or 
a reviewing court is to differentiate between "major" and lesser awards. Iri legislative 
history, Congress named the Nobel Prize as its sole example of a major, 
internationally recognized award that would by itself demonstrate "extraordinary 
ability." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119 (citing 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6739). No one 
suggests that an alien must win a Nobel Prize to qualify, and no one suggests that [the 
petitioner's] awards are on par with a Nobel Prize. What awards less prestigious and 
recognized than the Nobel Prize qualify as major, international awards is a question 
that the law does not answer. There is little question, moreover, that Congress felt it 
unnecessary and perhaps inadvisable to define "major" in this context. It entrusted 
that decision to the administrative process. 
Rijal, 772 F. Supp. 2d at 1339. 
This same court determined that USCIS did not act arbitrarily and capriciously if it: 
[C]onsidered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the 
facts it found and the choice it made. users explicitly considered the awards and all 
of the evidence [the petitioner] submitted to support his claim that they were major, 
international awards. users articulated a rational connection between those facts 
and its conclusion that his awards were not "major." ... Another adjudicator might 
have come to a different conclusion, but that is irrelevant. Unless the court can 
conclude that no rational adjudicator would have come to that conclusion, the users 
did not act arbitrarily and capriciously. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of Q-W-
!d. at 1345-46 (citation omitte'd). 
The Director did not make a determination regarding the Petitioner's eligibility for a one-time 
achievement. On appeal, the Petitioner states he is eligible based on his title of 
and offers a previously submitted letter from Chief 
Executive Officer for who states that the U.S. Open is a five-star 
tournament. 1 According to the 2015 tournament guide for presented by the Petitioner, star 
ratings are designed to signify the quality of a tournament such as lighting, flooring, and ceiling 
height. In addition, the tournament lists two other five-star tournaments - the U.S. National 
Championships and the National Collegiate Table Tennis Association (NCTTA) Intercollegiate 
Championships. 
The Petitioner did not submit documentation to demonstrate that a U.S. Open award constitutes a 
major, internationally recognized award consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The Petitioner did not present evidence, for example, showing that a U.S. Open award is reported by 
major media, enjoys familiar recognition, or garners a significant cash prize. Further, as there are 
other five-star tournaments, the Petitioner did not explain whether the U.S. Open is distinguished 
from the U.S. National Championships and the NCTTA Intercollegiate Championships, such that a 
, U.S. Open award is considered to be a major, internationally recognized award in the field. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he received a one-time achievement, and the 
Petitioner's third place finish will be addressed in the awards criterion below. 
B. Evideptiary Criteria2 
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). 
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). 
The Petitioner documented his receipt of awards from national and international table tennis 
tournaments. Specifically, the Director determined that his finish at the 
and his finish at the were nationally or internationally 
recognized awards in table tennis. Thus, the Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied this 
criterion, and the record supports that finding. 
1 While both the appeal brief and refer to the Petitioner's 
indicate that in he won in the 
the category. 
in 
category, and in 
certificates in the record 
he was a finalist in 
2 
We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence . 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of Q-W-
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which Classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Director found that' the Petitioner's memberships with and 
did not meet the regulatory requirements. Specifically, the Director stated that 
the Petitioner did not · demonstrate that memberships in the associations require outstanding 
achievements. . Further, the Director determined that the associations have open membership as 
opposed to the regulatory criterion that requires membership to be judged by recognized national or 
international experts. 
The previously mentioned letter from attests that the Petitioner is a member of both 
associations. Although the Petitioner submitted a letter from Membership Director for 
and a copy of the Petitioner's membership card, the Petitioner did not offer any 
primary documentation establishing his membership with the Moreover, states 
that "all membership is open to anybody who is interested to join." Again, the Petitioner did not 
submit primary evidence of the membership requirements for either association to support 
letter. Regardless, a petitioner must show that the association requires outstanding 
achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts. Open membership does not 
qualify for this criterion since any individual wishing to join may do so without a determination of 
the individual's achievements by recognized judges. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established 
that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications 01' other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classtfication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director issued a request for evidence and indicated that "[b ]ased on the evidence provided it 
appears this criterion has been met." In the decision, however, the Director did not make a 
determination regarding the Petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner 
indicates that he has garnered media attention , but the Director provided "no obvious explanation" 
concerning his eligibility. 
The record of proceedings contains two articles from that feature the 
Petitioner and discuss his playing style and tournament performance. Therefore, the Petitioner has 
demonstrated published material about him in professional or major trade publications 
consistent 
with the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
3 8 C.F.R. § J03.2(b)(2)(i) provides that the non-existence or unavailability ofrequired evidence creates a presumption of 
ineligibility. According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not 
exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is 
demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits . 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of Q-W-
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). 
Throughout the proceeding, the Petitioner has relied on reference letters to satisfy this criterion. The 
Director considered the letters and concluded that although they praised the Petitioner for his talent 
and skill, they did not show original contributions of major significance in the field. On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that his solid skills, hybrid techniques, and unique talents are recognized in 
China and the United 
States. 
Some of the letters focus on the Petitioner's accomplishments at tournaments. For instance, 
and list the 
Petitioner's finishes at various events and conclude that these results demonstrate the renown of his 
achievements on the national and international level. Furthermore, the record of ·proceedings 
contains evidence that the Petitioner achieved a ranking of in the under 21 boys division. The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated, however, how his tournament results and ranking constitute original 
contributions of major significance in the field consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
In addition, several of the letters discuss the Petitioner's assistance in playing against and training 
other table tennis players. states that 
the Petitioner's involvement in the program greatly benefits the table tennis community. 
In addition, and indicate that another 
player, trained against 
the Petitioner, and that it helped her become a top junior player 
in the United States. While the letters credit the Petitioner with assisting a local table tennis 
community and a specific player, they do not establish that the Petitioner significantly influenced the 
field as a whole. See Visinscilia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer 
had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Further, the Petitioner's 
letters praise his table tennis skills and talents as "rare" and "unique." None 
of the letters, however, indicate how the Petitioner's skills or personal traits are original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Having a diverse skill set is not a contribution of 
major significance in and of itself. Rather, the record must be supported by evidence that the 
Petitioner has already used those unique skills to impact the field at a significant level in an original 
way. 
Moreover, letters that repeat 
the regulatory language but do not explain how the petitioner's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036 aff'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115. The 
letters considered above primarily contain assertions of the Petitioner's status in the field without 
providing specific examples of how those contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance in the field. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The 
Attorney General ofthe United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Without supporting 
6 
Matter of Q-W-
evidence, the Petitioner has not shown he has made original contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
Summary 
As explained above, the evidence provided satisfies only two 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 0fthe ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
C. P-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record of proceedings reflects that the Petitioner received P-1 nonimmigrant status, 
a visa classification that requires the individual to perform as an athlete, either individually or as part 
of a team, at an internationally recognized level of performance, and that the individual seeks to 
enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of performing as such an athlete. See 
section 214(c)(4)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(c)(4)(A). Although USCIS has approved at least 
one P-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not 
preclude US CIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different standard. Many I -140 
immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q 
Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 
F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1103. 
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. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
. and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofQ-W-, ID# 17653 (AAO Aug. 1, 2016)