dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19272434 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 23, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a I I athlete and coach, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for this classification through 
evidence of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting three of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). He also concluded that the Petitioner had not established that his entry into 
the United States would provide a substantial prospective benefit. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a pettt10ner can demonstrate 
international 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 criteria 
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). 
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. 2010) 
( 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.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has competed in I I events for many years, and has placed in 
competitions at the regional, national, and international level. He has also acted as a trainer, 
primarily for local police departments. He states that he intends to continue to compete in 
sports events in the United States, as well as open a I academy to train others in the sport. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or 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). The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the 
same five evidentiary criteria he claimed in his original filing and in response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE). After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that he does not meet 
three of the criteria, and therefore does not satisfy the initial evidence requirement for the requested 
classification. 
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 evidence includes scoring results from several 
websites of th 
etitions sourced from the 
_________ and the ___________________ These 
show that the Petitioner placed at several tournaments, however several of these documents do not 
show the name, place, or date of the competition. For example, exhibit 27 of the original submission 
consists of pages of charts with results which show that the Petitioner finished third in the I I I master" division, but there is no identification of the competition in which these results were 
earned. Other documents include only partial information, such as the date on which the results were 
achieved. The match results from the W orld I (2011) and W orld (2014) 
2 
are sufficient to show that he placed fourth and third, respectively, in the "standard junior" division at 
those competitions. We note that the record does not include evidence that the Petitioner received a 
prize or award for placing fourth in 2011, but does include a photograph of a trophy for his third place 
finish in 2014. 
Also included in the record is information about the from the organization's website, including 
a list of past continental and world championships, in some of which the Petitioner has demonstrated 
that he participated. This evidence states that competitions such as the world are considered to 
be the top level of those held or sponsored by while continental championships such as the Pan 
American and Latin American I championships in which the Petitioner also placed are at the 
next lower level of competition. As the Petitioner has demonstrated that he has received at least one 
award at the top level of competition in I we conclude that he meets 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) 
To demonstrate satisfaction of this criterion, a noncitizen must show that they are a member of an 
association in their field, that that association requires outstanding achievements as a condition of 
membership, that those achievements are judged by national or international experts in that field. 
The Petitioner bases his claim to meeting this criterion on · · on membership in the I I as well as the 
United Statesl IAssociatio While he asserts that the Director concluded 
that he had not established his membership in this is incorrect, as the decision refers to the 
letter from _________ President of the organization, as providing evidence of his 
membership. We agree that the Petitioner has established that he is a member of and that this 
is an association in his field of I 
Regarding the next element, whether! requires outstanding achievements of its members, the 
Petitioner initially referred to Article 10 of the bylaws, which states the following: 
Art. 10. It is the prerogative of I and, only by express delegation, to certify, when 
necessary, the aptitude of sportsmen in thel I especially those 
considered by specific legislation on and, consequently, declare them 
fit to participate in ______ 
However, article 10 is in Chapter III of the bylaws, which is titled "Definition and Composition of 
Tournaments." This context, and the plain language of article 10, reveal that it refers 
not to membership in the organization, but certification to participate in tournaments. More 
importantly, neither the Petitioner nor the Director make reference to the sections of the bylaws which 
do pertain to membership in the organization. An entire section of the bylaws, "Title III - Members," 
is devoted to this subject, and article 48 in that section indicates that there are several types of 
members, one of which is "athletes." Article 57, which is italicized in the English translation but not 
in the Portuguese original document, states the following: 
3 
The application for membership by athletes directly affiliated with the 
CONFEDERATION must be signed by the applicant and contain a direct statement 
that he or she fulfills the requirements for the issuance of the Certificate of Registration 
with thel and agrees to comply with thel Bylaws and regulations. 
Therefore, per article 57 in thel I bylaws, an athlete need only submit a statement in order to apply 
for membership in the organization. As there is no evidence that this task requires outstanding 
achievement, the Petitioner has not established that outstanding achievement is a requirement for 
membership inl I 
On appeal, the Petitioner makes two conflicting arguments. First, he states that in order to become a 
member inl l"one must compete for a position on the team and be given the opportunity 
to compete nationally and internationally." This statement appears to be based upon the letter from 
I in which he states that "I am able to decide if the athlete will be compatible to join the 
confederation, that means that the athlete needs to be constant! competitions, with a 
minimum expertise and awards." However, it is membershi in which the Petitioner claims as 
qualifying, not membership on any particular team. Despite ___ s letter, there is no provision 
in the bylaws concerning membership which requires that athletes compete at the national or 
international level. 
Second, the Petitioner states that to become a member, an athlete must present a list of documents, 
including several statements, proof of address, judicial permit, and identity documents. While this list 
may include documentation not specifically covered in article 57, he makes no reference to evidence 
of the source of this list. More importantly, the Petitioner does not suggest that the production of these 
documents is an outstanding achievement in the field of I 
Turning to his claim as a member of the Petitioner refers to exhibits 48 to 50 of the RFE 
response on appeal. While the RFE exhibits number only 43, the original submission included 
evidence that the organization had certified him as al lfrom October 30, 2017. This 
evidence does not establish that he is a member of I Tn addition, the Petitioner submitted pages 
from the I !website which describe the association and its history, but do not address its 
membership requirements. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion 
through membership in either the orl I 
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 
necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In his decision, the Director noted that the I !website is not considered one of the qualifying types 
of media under this criterion, but did not provide an analysis or reasons for making this conclusion. 
However, we will initially address the first element of this criterion, whether the Petitioner has 
established that any of the material published on that website was about him. This evidence consists 
of three documents, submitted at exhibits 57, 58, and 59 of the original submission. The first article 
is about the 2012 Pan-American I IChampionship, and indicates that several of the 
association's younger athletes, including the Petitioner, achieved titles. It goes on to report the results 
4 
of other matches in the tournament, naming dozens of individuals. While the article gives a few words 
for each competitor
1 
("demonstrating a huge maturing [the Petitioner]"), it is not about any of them 
individually but the members' performance overall. 
The second and third articles posted to the website simply list the Petitioner's name in a group of 
athletes, and provide no comment at all regarding his background or performance as an athlete. As 
such, they are not about him but about the events in which the group of athletes participated. 
Other materials submitted by the Petitioner in support of this criterion include two screenshots from 
separate videos in which the Petitioner is pictured and identified. The first was published on the 
website of a Brazilian television channel called RecordTV, and the second was posted to what appears 
to be a personal Y ouTube channel. Although the Petitioner claims that he was interviewed as a 
expert in the first video which appears to relate to a news story involving! I and the title of the 
second concerns a tournament in I Brazil, neither is accompanied by written transcripts. 
The Petitioner's and his representative's descriptions of the content of these materials is not supported 
by documentary evidence in the record, and we are therefore unable to determine that the material 
published on these media is about the Petitioner. 
As the Petitioner has not shown that any of the published material in the record is about him, he has 
not 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) 
We agree with the Petitioner's statement on appeal that in order to meet this criterion, a noncitizen 
must show that their contributions are both original and of major significance, as shown by impact or 
influence on the field. After review of the evidence submitted in support of his claim to this criterion, 
we conclude that he has not demonstrated his impact or influence upon the field of I 
The Petitioner asserts that he made an original contribution by starting his ownl I club 
and teaml with his father. A letter from his father and 
business registration documents show that he served as this organization's Technical Director or 
Sports Director from its inception in late 2012 until January 2017. His father indicates that in this role 
he "helped organize" events, tournaments, training, and financial and legal administration. He also 
served asl I instructor, training several police agencies as well as athletes, and represented the 
club as an athlete. The Petitioner's role in providing training to law enforcement agencies is 
supported by letters from two of those agencies. 
As stated by the Director in his decision, the evidence does not show that the Petitioner is or was a 
founder of I only that he served as one of its officers and as I I instructor. In 
addition, his father does not state in his letter that he created the I team that represented the 
club, only that he trained athletes and represented the club as an athlete himself. The Petitioner has 
therefore not shown that he made an original contribution to 
Further, even if the Petitioner had been able to establish that he was a founder of I I he has 
not shown that the creation of this organization was of major significance to the overall field of 
5 
While the evidence establishes that I I trained at least two law 
enforcement agencies in Brazil and trained athletes, and thus had some impact on the field in that 
country, the evidence does not show, for instance, that its training methods were adopted by other 
I I trainers in Brazil or elsewhere, or that the Petitioner otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
In addition, while the Petitioner may have trained _______ athletes and law enforcement 
officers, the record does not establish that they were unusually successful in their respective roles or 
constituted a significant portion of those active in those roles, or that their collective training somehow 
impacted the field. 
The Petitioner also asserts that he made contributions as a I athlete, noting that he 
represented Brazil at internationall I competitions. However, he does not explain how winning 
awards at international competitions contributed to the field or influenced or impacted it in a 
significant way. I s letter states that the Petitioner has "been doing a lot of things to help 
our sport to keep growing," but he does not provide details about how or how much the Petitioner has 
helped to grow the sport, and the record lacks evidence to support this statement. 
Based upon the foregoing analysis of the Petitioner's contributions as both an athlete and a trainer, we 
conclude that he has not established that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. Although he claims eligibility for an additional 
criterion on appeal, relating to his leading or critical for organizations having a distinguished 
reputation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we need not reach that additional ground. As the Petitioner 
cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we 
reserve this issue. 1 Therefore, we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced 
in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20.2 Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the 
aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner has established the acclaim 
and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. 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. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and that he is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24. 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
2 We also reserve the issue of whether the Petitioner's entry into the United States would provide a substantial prospective 
benefit. Id. 
6 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7