dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P.-M-W-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 18, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a competitive swimmer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(I)(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 fidd through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the Beneficiary satislles at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents additional documentation and a brief stating that he meets all 
evidentiary requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
l. LAW 
Section 203(b )(I )(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(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 111 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 tield of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
Maller of P-M- W-
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 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). In addition, if a petitioner 
demonstrates that the listed criteria do not readily apply to his ·or her occupation, then he or she may 
submit comparable evidence to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
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 I 0). 1 
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." Maller ol 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a competitive swimmer, did not indicate, and the record does not establish, that he 
has received a major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The 
Petitioner must therefore demonstrate his eligibility under at least three of the criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not satisfy the regulatory requirements for the awards 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 2M5(h)(3)(i), the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the 
published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), or the leading or critical role criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On appeal, he asserts that he has satisfied all four of the claimed 
criteria. We have reviewed the entire record of proceedings, and it does not support a finding that 
the Beneficiary meets the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documenwtion ol the alien ·s receipt of" lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
mFardsjiJr excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record contains documentation, including photographs, certificates, and statistics, indicating that 
he has earned numerous points for his various teams in competitive events, as well as multiple 
certificates and medals, throughout his swimming career. However, the documentation submitted is 
1 This case disCusses 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. 20 13): Rijalv. US CIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011 ). 
2 
.
Maller of P-M-W-
insuffici ent to demonstrate that these award s constitute nationally or internationaiJy recognized 
awards for excelle nce in his field. 
The Petitioner submitted numer ous s tatistics from his time as a member of the Univer sity of 
swim team and the Poli sh national team. Although he assert s tha t al l tin ishe rs i n the top 
eight for each individual or relay event gamer points for their team , his finishes within these 
parameter s do not constitut e nationally or internationally recogni zed awards for excellence. While 
his points, comb ined with tho se of his numerou s teammates competing in other event s, may have 
contribut ed to his team s' overall f-inishes in various competitions,- there is no indication that the 
earning of points _at various swim meets is equivalent to an award for excellence in the fie ld. 
He also relie s on his receipt of various certificates and awards while a member of the University of 
swim team, such as certificates awardin g him All-American status on the NCAA 
_ _ for 2013 and being named for 20 15 and 2016. 
While these awards acknowl edge his skills and abi lities, there is no indication that these awards 
consti tute nationally or internat ionall y recogni zed awa rds for excellence in the field of swimmi ng. 
Moreover , the Petitioner did not provide the selection criteria tor these awards. Finall y, the record 
contains no evide nce demon strating that the Petitioner's receipt of the se awards garnered national 
attention beyond the or the university. 
The record also contains numerous claims that he won NCAA gold and bronze conference medals 
for rela y and individual event s while a member of the Universit y of swim team . Howeve r, 
ther e is no specific documentar y evidence to support a tinding that plac ing within the top three at 
variou s NCAA swimming events constitute s nationall y or internatio nall y recognized awa rds for 
excellence in swimming. Moreover, the record does not contain corroborating evidence of his 
receipt ofthese medals. 
Although the record contain s photographs of the Petitioner with numerous medals, it does not 
includ e corroborat ing evidence ex plaining the nature and purpose of each meda l. The Petitioner 
asserts that he placed 8th and I Oth at variou s Europ ean Champion ships, but there is no ev idence 
demon strating that such placement in those event s co nstitutes an awa rd for cxccllcn cc in the fi e ld. 
Moreove r, while the Petition er submits copies of "Diplomas " on appeal, accompani ed by Engl ish 
translation s, that demonstrat e he placed first in both the I 00 Yard and 200 Yard Freesty le even ts for 
the in swimming, there is no information 
demon strating that awards given by the are recognized 
nationally or internationall y. For the above- stated reasons , the Petition er has not establi shed that the 
Beneficiar y meets this regu latory criterion . 
.., 
.) 
.
Maller of P-iv/-W-
Docum entation (~{'the alien's membership in associations in !he f ield for 1-1:hich c!ass(fication is 
sought, which require oUTstanding achievem ents of their members . as judged by recognized 
national or internation al experts in their disciplines orjields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (h)(3)(i i). 
We tl.nd that the Director erred in determin ing that the record did not establish el igibility for this 
criterion. The Petitioner dem ons trated that he was a member of the Polish national team on multiple 
occasion s, and represented Poland as a member of the country's team at the Summer Olympic 
Games in He has therefore sati sfied this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other mqjor 
media. relating to the alien 's work in the field for which c/ass(jicatiorr is sought . Such evidence 
shall include the title. date. and author (~lthe material. and any necessary translmion. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204 .S(h)(3)(iii). 
The Direc tor found that the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion , and we agree w ith that 
determin ation. Although he submitted several article s and what appear to be video interv iew s 
regardin g his athletic performances published in variou s forms of media, includin g the Unive rsity o f 
on line web page , the online versions of and 
Polish-l ang uage publication s, the ev idence is insufficient to demonstrate that t hese articles appeared 
in profe ssional .publications, major trade publication s, or other major media as required under the 
regulation . 
The Petitione r submitted what appears to be an article posted on the University of web 
page at _ The article docs not \nclude the identit y of its author or its date of 
publication; thus, it does not satisfy the requir ements of this criter ion. Even if the se relevan t factors 
were includ ed, the record does not establish that thi s s ite qualitie s as majo r med ia. The mere act of 
posting an aniclc online does not transform what is otherwise a local college newspap er article into 
major media. 
Regarding the v ideos featur ed in the online versions of 
the Petiti oner mis<.:onstrues the type of evidence co ntemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)( iii), which 
plainly states: "Such evidence shall include the title, date , and author of the material , and any 
necessary translation." (Emph asis added). The submitte d evidence lacks a ll of the elements 
required by· the plain langu age of the regul ation. In additi on, the online web pages of these 
publications merel y contain photos of the video start pages , and are not accompanied by written 
transcripts identify ing the conte nt oft hese claim ed interv iews. 2 
2 It should be noted that in the event the submissions from these magazines otherwise met the regulatory requirements, 
the information regarding their circulation is insufficient to establish that they constitute major media. The 
documentation provided is from the publications themselves (their websites, specifically) r ather than published 
circulation statistics from an official or independent website or other publicly available source. We need not rely on the 
self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-5105 SJO FMOX, 2007 WL 9229758, at *7 
(C. D. Cal. July 6. 2007) (tfJ'd, 317 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that we did not have to rely on a company's 
self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). 
4 
.
Mauer of P-M-W-
Finall y, the Pet itioner submits article s publ ished in various Polish-language pu blicat ions, 
accomp anied by ce rtified transla tions. The tran slation accompa nying the first article, . enti tled 
does not includ e the name o f the p ublication i n wh ich the article 
appear ed, or the date and author o f the article . Although the t ranslations of the rema inin g a rticle s 
contain the relevant det ails req uired under this criterion, the Petiti one r has n ot estab lished the 
circulation data of (Polish Sports Magazine ) o r . Newspaper to 
comp are with the circulati on statistics of othe r Polish newspap ers o r m agaz ines. Con seque ntly, he 
has not e stab lished that are form s of major media. The record 
lacks i nformatio n related t o the d istributi on data of these publications to dem onstrate that t hey arc 
considered to be major m edia and the Petiti oner has not established these publ ications are 
profe ssional or m ajor trad e publi cations as required by t he regulation. See Noroozi v. N apolitano, 
90:5 F.Supp.2d 535, 545 (S.D.N . Y. 20 12). For the reasons outlin ed abov e, the Petitioner has not 
satistied the requirement s 
of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe1jorm ed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petit ioner asse11s that h e has performed in a leading or critical role for the University of 
swim team. In gener al, a leading role is evidenced from the role itse lf, whil e a criti cal r ole is 
one in which a petitioner was respo nsible for the s uccess or stand ing of the o rgani zation. 
The Petitioner asserts o n appea l that h e p layed a c ritical role for the Universi ty of sw1m 
tea m " beca use he has won multiple NCAA Champ ionships, helped improve his teamm ates 
performa nces, and set schoo l reco rds." He a sserts that his performances in multi ple con ference 
champion ships places him above his other teammates, thereb y mak ing his role m ore lead ing and 
critical than those of other swimm ers on the team. 
Althou gh the Petitioner submitted evidence demonstratin g that the University of swim 
team h as a distinguished reputation, he has not indi cated where his position tits in the organizat ion's 
overall hierarchy or shown how his member ship on the team was reflective of a leading or critica l 
role. The reco rd doe s not i nclud e evidence, for exampl e, ditJeren tiating h is role as a swimmer from 
that of the o ther members. 
The Peti tioner state s that he has won num erous m edals for the University o f swim team in 
frees tyle and frees tyle relay champions hip events; speci ficall y, the 200 and 500 Yard Preestyles, and 
the 200 and 800 Yard Freestyle Rela ys. However , his receip t of these medals is not suffic ient to 
demon strate that h e served in a leadi ng or critica l role. As explained by t he Pet itioner, the top eight 
swimm ers in all events are awarded points for their respecti ve t eams, which therefo re contr ibu te to 
the overall team score and ultim ate place in whi ch they finish. Howeve r, as a relay swimm er, he is 
one of a team of four and has not demonstrat ed that his contribu tion s surpass his teamma tes. The 
5 
.
Muller of P-M-W-
Petitioner has not provided sufficient ev idence indicating that his swimming results impac ted the 
Univer sity of standing in the sport beyond those of his fellow teammates and competitors. 
Although he submits numerous letter s o f recommendation from coaches and fellow swimmers, these 
are likewise insufticient to demon strate his leading or critical role for the University of sw im 
team. For example, the head coach, states that the Petitioner "was a crucial membe r of 
the team" who contributed to major successes in the relay category. Again , while his contributions 
were undoubtedly notable, there is no indication that his role as a member of a four-person relay 
team was more leading or critical than that of his three fellow relay team members, or of other. 
individual team members in general. Similarly, although states that as an international 
swimmer , the Petitioner oftercd his younge r teammates a different perspective that helped them 
prepare tor their first major events, there is no indication that he assume d a leading or critical role 
beyond that of mentoring you nge r teammates. 
Similarly, . associate head coac h tor the University of swim team, stated that 
the Petitioner played a leading role becau se he "scored many points throughout the seaso n" and used 
his experience to mentally and phy sically prepare inexperienced teamma tes for competition. The 
record, however, does not include evidence ditTerentiating his point resu lts from fellow team 
members or explaining how his competitive results impacted the team's standing in the sport. For 
instance, the Petitioner did not show that the swim team garnered attention based on his top finishes 
at conference swimming events. Moreover , while attests to the importance of the 
Petitioner's role in guiding and mentoring younger teammate s, the record lacks corroborating 
evidence demonstrating that this aspec t of the Petitioner 's role for the organization was leading or 
critical. 
The Petitioner also asserts that his role on various Polish national teams was leading or critical, again 
based on his claims of scoring points and earning medals that bolstered his team 's rankin gs. A letter 
from the states that his role is more leading tha n other teamm ates since 
1 he "is a consistent point scorer" and "because he holds multiple National Cham pionships." Th is 
letter fall s s hort of pro viding probative information that specifically addresses how the Petitioner's 
role was critical for each of the national teams for which he played. We cannot presume that he 
performed in a leading or critical role simply by his rankings in events specific to him; additional 
probative, corroborating evidence must also be part of the record. The Petitioner must provide 
specifics relating to how his role was critical to the organization as a whole. See Norooii v. 
Napolitano, 905 F.Supp .2d at 545. Simply claiming that he won numer ous medals and led his team 
to numerou s victories, without more, falls sho rt of providing probative information that specif icall y 
addresses how the Petitioner's role was critical tor the team. 
Even if the Petitioner had demonstrated that his role was leading or critical as contempl ated by this 
criterion, he must also demonstrate that the organization has a distinguished reputation. The record, 
howeve r, contains insufficient ev idence to establish that the Polish national team enjoys a 
distinguished reputation as contemplated by the regulation . 
6 
Mauer of 1'-M-W-
Ill. 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 I I 9-20. 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 level of expertise required for the classification sought. In addition, as the 
Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
need not determine whether he is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" 
under section 203(b )( l )(A)(ii). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Aialler of P-ivf-W-, ID# I 052433 (AAO Apr. 18, 20 18) 
7