dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
identifyingdatadeletedto " |±Cpreventclearlyunwarranted 20MassachuseusAve.,N.w.,Ms2090
Washington,Dc 20529-2090
invasionofpersonalprivacy U.S.Citizenship
PUBLIC COPY - and Immigration
Services
DATE: AUG 3 0 2012 Office: TEXAS SERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALF OF PET[TIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Pleasebe advised
that any further inquiry that you might haveconcerningyour casemust be madeto that office.
If you believe the AAO inappropriatelyapplied the law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthat you wish to haveconsidered,you mayfile a motion to reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specific requirementsfor filing sucha motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within
30 daysof the decision that the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichisnowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationfor thebeneficiaryasan"alienof extraordinaryability" in athletics,
pursuantto section 203(b)(1)(A)of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C.
§ ll53(b)(1)(A). Thedirectordeterminedthepetitionerhadnot establishedthesustainednationalor
internationalacclaim of the beneficiarynecessaryto qualify for classificationas an alien of
extraordinaryability.
Congressseta veryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the Act and
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a
major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,theregulationoutlines
ten categoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through(x). The petitioner
mustsubmitqualifyingevidenceon behalfof thebeneficiaryunderat leastthreeof thetenregulatory
categoriesof evidencetoestablishthebasiceligibility requirements.
On appeal,counselsubmitsa brief andadditionalevidence.For thereasonsdiscussedbelow,upon
reviewof theentirerecord,includingtheevidencesubmittedonappeal,theAAO upholdsthedirector's
conclusionthat the petitioner has not establishedthe beneficiary'seligibility for the exclusive
classificationsought.
1. LAW
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priorityworkers.- Visasshallfirst be madeavailable... to qualifiedimmigrantswhoare
aliensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Aliens with extraordinaryability. - An alienis describedin this subparagraphif -
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences,arts, education,
business,or athleticswhichhasbeendemonstratedby sustainednationalor
internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeenrecognizedin the
fieldthroughextensivedocumentation,
(ii) thealienseeksto entertheUnitedStatesto continuework in theareaof
extraordinaryability,and
Page3
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthat Congressintendedto seta very high standardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasas aliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723 101" Cong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56 Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29,1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability" refersonlyto
thoseindividualsin thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.M:
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien'ssustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof aone-timeachievement(thatis,amajor,internationalrecognizedaward)or
throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the tencategoriesof evidence
listedat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x).
In 2010,the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewedthe denialof a
petitionfiled underthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010).Althoughthe
court upheldthe AAO's decisionto denythepetition, the court took issuewith the AAO's evaluation
of evidencesubmittedto meeta given evidentiarycriterion.1 With respectto thecriteria at 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), thecourtconcludedthatwhile USCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwocriteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-22.
Thecourt statedthatthe AAO's evaluationrestedon an improperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAO did)," andif thepetitioner
failedto submitsufñeientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at 1122(citing to
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)).
Thus,Kazariansetsforth a two-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in thecontextof a final meritsdetermination. In this matter,theAAO will reviewthe evidenceunder
theplain languagerequirementsof eachcriterion claimed. As thepetitionerdid not submitqualifying
evidenceon behalf of the beneficiaryunder at least threecriteria, the properconclusionis that the
petitionerhasfailedtosatisfytheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.Id.
' Specifically,the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterallyimposednovel substantiveor evidentiary
requirementsbeyondthose set forth in the regulationsat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page4
II. INTENTTO CONTINUETO WORKIN THE AREAOFEXPERTISE
The AAO notes here that in Part 6 of Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. the
petitionerlistedthe beneficiary'sjob title as"Chief Instructor." Further,thepetitionersubmitteda
job offer letter confirming that the beneficiary'sposition would be that of "Chief Instructor." Thus,
therecordreflectsthatthepetitioneris seekingclassificationasanalienof extraordinaryability asan
instructoror coachratherthanasa competitor. Eventhoughthepetitioner submitteddocumentation
regardinghis involvementin earliertournamentsasa competitor,therecordreflectsthepetitioner's
intentis to work in theUnitedStatesasacoach.
Thestatuteandregulationsrequirethebeneficiary'snationalor internationalacclaimto besustained
and that he seeksto continuework in his areaof expertisein the United States.Seesections
203(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii), and 8 C.F.R.
§§204.5(h)(3) and (5). While a wushu instructor and a wushu competitor shareknowledgeof the
sport,thetwo relyonverydifferentsetsof basicskills. Thus,instructionandcompetitionarenotthe
sameareaof expertise.This interpretationhasbeenupheldin federalcourt. In Leev. LN.S.,237F.
Supp.2d914(N.D.Ill. 2002),thecourtstated:
It is reasonableto interpretcontinuing to work in one's "areaof extraordinaryability"
as working in the sameprofessionin which one has extraordinaryability, not
necessarilyin anyprofessionin thatfield. Forexample,Lee'sextraordinaryability as
a baseballplayerdoesnot imply thathealsohasextraordinaryability in all positions
or professionsin thebaseballindustrysuchasa manager,umpireor coach.
Id. at 918. Thecourtnoteda consistenthistoryin this area.While therecorddemonstratesthatthe
petitionerintendsto worksasa coach,thereis no evidenceindicatingthatheintendsto competeas
an athlete in the United States. While the AAO acknowledgesthe possibility of an alien's
extraordinaryclaim in more than one field, suchas wushuinstructorand wushucompetitor,the
petitioner, however, must demonstrate"by clear evidencethat the alien is coming to the United
Statesto continuework in theareaof expertise." See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(5).
Basedon the petitioner's answersto the questionson Form I-140 andthe submitteddocumentation.
therecordreflectsthat thebeneficiaryintendsto continueto work in theareaof coachingratherthan
competition.It shouldalsobenotedthat,accordingto therecord,thebeneficiaryhasbeencoaching
since1999and,thus,hashadplentyof opportunityto earnacclaimasa coach. As notedby the
director in both the requestfor evidenceand the denial notice, the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)must be satisfiedthroughthe beneficiary'sachievementsas a coach. As such,the
evidencesubmittedby the petitionerregardingthe beneficiary'saccomplishmentsasa competitor
will notbeconsideredhere.
Page5
III. ANALYSIS
A. EvidentiaryCriteria2
Documentationof the alien's receipt of lessernationaHyor internationally recognizedprizes or
awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
As statedby thedirectorin hisdenial,therecorddoesnotcontainanyawardswonby thebeneficiary
asacoachor instructor,ratherthanasacompetitor.Althoughcounsel,referringto theAdjudicator's
FieldManual(AFM) 22.2(i)(1)(C),assertson appealthatthebeneficiary"is not necessarilyrequired
at this point to establishhisextraordinaryability asa coach,his showingof extraordinaryability as
anathletebearson his ability to...continuehis careerasa coach,"theAAO is not persuaded.The
beneficiaryhasnot established"recentnationalor internationalacclaimasan athlete nor hasthe
beneficiary"sustainedthatacclaimin thefield of coaching/managingata nationallevel,"asrequired
by AFM 22.2(i)(1)(C).
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnot establishedthatthebeneficiarymeetstheplain language
requirementsof thisregulatorycriterion.
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for which classification is
sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof their members,asjudged by recognizednational
or internationalexpertsin their disciplinesorfields.
On appeal coa btstatesthat
"membership...requiredoutstandingachievement"andthat"it is thehighestlevelof youngmasters
However,theunsupportedassertionsof counseldo notconstituteevidence.Matterof Dhaighena,l9
I&N Dec.533,534n.2(BIA 1988);MatterofLaureano,19I&N Dec.1,3 n.2(BIA 1983);Mattero
Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980). Counselalsocitesa letterfrom
purpor, I ' of theChineseWushuAssociation,whichstatesthatthebeneficiary"is a nationalmember
of the ranking in 6 degreeDuan Wei amongthe highestlevel of young
masters."(Emphasisadded.)
According to the information submittedon appealfrom the InternationalWushu Federation,"the
professionallevelsof playerscanbegradedfrom low to highlevelsasfollows:primaryDuan(levels
1~3),middle Duan (4'"~6thDuan) andadvancedDuan (7th_gthDuan)," indicatingthat therearethree
Duan levels higher than the beneficiary'scurrentlevel. The recordalso fails to establishthat
membershipin the NationalWushuFederationof Chinaor theChineseWushuAssociationrequires
outstandingachievementsof their members. A member'ssubsequentpromotionthroughthe skill
The petitioner does not claim to meetor submit evidence relating to the regulatory categoriesof evidence
not discussedin this decision.
Page6
levelsin an associationthatis otherwiseopento all practitionersdoesnot meetthe plain language
requirements.
Moreover, contrary to counsel'sassertion,the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(i)requiresmembershipin "associations"in the plural, which is consistentwith the
statutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidence.Section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct. Significantly,notall
of the criteriaat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)arewordedin the plural. Specifically,the regulationsat 8
C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(ix) only requireserviceonasinglejudgingpanelor asinglehighsalary.
Whena regulatorycriterionwishesto includethe singularwithin theplural, it expresslydoesso as
when it statesat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)that evidenceof experiencemustbe in the form of
"letter(s)." Thus,theAAO caninfer thattheplural in theremainingregulatorycriteriahasmeaning.In
adifferentcontext,federalcourtshaveupheldUSCIS'abilityto interpretsignificancefromwhetherthe
singularor pluralisusedin aregulation?
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnot establishedthatthebeneficiarymeetstheplain language
requirementsof thisregulatorycriterion.
Publishedmaterial about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major
media,relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classificationis soughL Suchevidence
shall includethetitle, date,andauthor of thematerial,andanynecessarytranslation.
Thedirectordiscussedthesubmittedevidenceandfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthe
evidencewasqualifying. On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot contestthe director'sfindingsfor this
criterionor offer additionalarguments.The AAO, therefore,considersthis issueto be abandoned.
Sepulvedav. U.S.Att'y Gen.,401 F.3d 1226,1228n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005),citing UnitedStatesv.
Cunningham,161F.3d1343,1344(1lth Cir. 1998);seealsoHristovv.Roark,No.09-CV-27312011,
2011WL 4711885at *L *9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,2011)(plaintiff's claimswereabandonedashefailed
to raisethemon appealto theAAO).
Evidenceof thealiens participation,eitherindividuallyor on a panel.asa judgeof the workof
othersin thesameor analliedfield ofspecificationfor whichclassificationissought.
The director found that the petitioner establishedthat the beneficiarysatisfiesthe plain language
requirementsof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)andtheAAO affirmsthatfinding.
3SeeMaramjayav. USCIS,Civ.Act. No.06-2158(RCL)at 12(D.C.Cir. March26,2008);Snapnames.com
Inc. v. Chertoff,2006WL 3491005at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006)(upholdingan interpretationthat the
regulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreignequivalentdegreeat 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(l)(2)
requiresasingledegreeratherthanacombinationof academiccredentials).
Page7
Evidenceof the alien's original scientific. scholarly, artistic, athletic, or busines»related
contributionsof major significancein thefield.
Onappeal,counselassertsthatthebeneficiary"wasinvolvedin thepreparationof theTextbookSeries
of ," thatthebeneficiary"preparedthechapter'M' and
hasbeenpicturedin thetechnicalposesaccompanyingthetext." However,theunsignedletterfrom the
ChineseWushu Associationonly statesthat the beneficiary"present[ed]on th[e] material" and was
"invited to performthe materialpresentedin this textbook." The recordcontainsnoevidencethatthe
textbookcreditsthebeneficiaryor of the book's salesnumbers. Going on recordwithout supporting
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposesof meeting the burden of proof in these
proceedings.Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158,165(Comm'r 1998)(citing Matter of Treasure
Craft of California, 14I&N Dec.190(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)).
Therecordcontainsa copyof thebookchapterin theoriginalChineselanguage.The regulationat 8
C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3)provides:
Translations.Any documentcontainingforeignlanguagesubmittedto [USCIS]shall
be accompaniedby a full English languagetranslationwhich the translatorhas
certified ascompleteandaccurate,and by the translator'scertification that he or she
is competentto translatefrom theforeign languageinto English.
As the petitioner did not provide a translation and, thus, did not comply with the terms of the
regulationsat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(3)and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),the foreignlanguagedocument
cannotbeconsideredhere.
Therecordalsocontainsa numberof lettersof recommendation.Thelettersprimarilycontainbare
assertionsof skill in the martial arts and as a teacher,without specifically identifying original
contributionsandprovidingspecificexamplesof how thosecontributionsrise to a level consistent
with major significancein thefield. Merely repeatingthe languageof the statuteor regulationsdoes
not satisfy the petitioner'sburdenof proof.4 The petitioneralso failed to submit corroborating
evidenceof the beneficiary'scontributions,which could havebolsteredtheweightof the reference
letters.
Without documentaryevidencedemonstratingof the beneficiary'soriginal contributions,theAAO
cannotconcludethatthebeneficiarymeetsthiscriterion.
4FedinBros.Co.,Ltd. v.Sava,724F. Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y. 1989),affd, 905F. 2d41 (2d.Cir. 1990):
Avyr Associates,lnc. v. Meissner,1997WL 188942at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly,USCISneednotaccept
primarilyconclusoryassertions.1756,Inc.,745F.Supp.at 15.
Page8
Evidenceof thedisplayofthe alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitionsor showcases.
Thedirectordiscussedthesubmittedevidenceandfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthe
evidencewas qualifying. On appeal,the petitionerdoes not contestthe director's findings for this
criterionor offer additionalarguments.The AAO, therefore,considersthis issueto be abandoned.
Sepulvedav. U.S.Att'y Gen.,401F.3d1228n.2,Hristovv.Roark,2011WI 4711885at*9 (plaintitTs
claimswereabandonedashefailedtoraisethemonappealtotheAAO).
Evidencethat thealien hascommandeda high salary or other significantlyhigh remunerationfor
services,in relation to othersin thefield.
Thedirectordiscussedthesubmittedevidenceandfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthe
evidencewasqualifying. On appeal,the petitionerdoesnot contestthe director'sfindingsfor this
criterionor offeradditionalarguments.TheAAO, therefore,considersthisissuetobeabandoned./d.
C. Summary
As thepetitionerdid not submitqualifyingevidenceon behalfof thebeneficiaryunderat leastthree
criteria,theproperconclusionis thatthepetitionerhasfailed to demonstratethatthebeneficiaryhas
satisfiedtheantecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence.
IIL CONCLUSION
Hadthe petitionersubmittedthe requisiteevidenceon behalfof the beneficiaryunderat leastthree
evidentiarycategories,in accordancewith theKazarian opinion, thenext stepwould bea final merits
determinationthat considersall of the evidencein the context of whetheror not the petitioner has
demonstrated:(1) a -level of expertiseindicatingthat the individual is one of that small percentage
who haverisento theverytop of the[ir] field of endeavor"and(2) "that thealienhassustainednational
or internationalacclaimand that his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of
expertise."8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(2)and(3); seealsoKazarian,596F.3dat 1119-20.While theAAO
concludesthattheevidenceis notindicativeof alevelof expertiseconsistentwith thesmallpercentage
attheverytopof thefield or sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,theAAO neednotexplainthat
conclusionin a finalmeritsdetermination.'Rather,theproperconclusionisthatthepetitionerfailedto
demonstratethatthebeneficiaryhassatisfiedthe antecedentregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof
evidence.Id. at 1122.
5TheAAO maintainsdenovoreviewof all questionsof factandlaw. SeeSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3dat 145. In
anyfutureproceeding,theAAO maintainsthejurisdictiontoconducta finalmeritsdeterminationastheolTice
thatmadethelastdecisionin this matter.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(ii).Seealsosection103(a)(I)of theAct;
section204(b)of theAct; DHSDelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch1,2003);8 C.F.R.§ 2.1(2003);
8 C.F.R.§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(2003);MatterofAurelio, 19I&N Dec.458,460(BIA 1987)(holdingthatlegacy
INS,nowUSCIS,isthesoleauthoritywith thejurisdictiontodecidevisapetitions).
Page9
Thepetitionerhasnot establishedthebeneficiary'seligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the
Act andthepetitionmaynotbeapproved.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner. Section291of
theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Here,thepetitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.Accordingly,theappeal
will bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.