dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 25, 2024 In Re: 34070519 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a long-distance runner, seeks classification as an individual 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] 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 [noncitizen] seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [noncitizen'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 petitioner can demonstrate recognition 
of their 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 they 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 fust 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, a long-distance runner, intends to continue her activities in the field of athletics in the 
United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Although the Petitioner claimed to meet the plain language 
requirements of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) related to lesser awards (i), 
memberships (ii), published materials (iii), and original contributions of major significance (v), the 
Director determined that she satisfied none of them. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains eligibility for 
these four criteria and asserts that the Director's decision was erroneous. 
Upon de novo review, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not satisfied 
the initial evidence requirements by meeting at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Documentation of the [noncitizen '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). 
To fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that she received prizes or awards, and they 
are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was "excellence in the 
field" include but are not limited to the criteria used to grant the awards or prizes, the national or 
international significance of the awards or prizes in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
2 
recipients, as well as any limitations on competitors. See generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policyrnanual. 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion. However, we find sufficient 
documentary evidence to establish that the Petitioner received nationally and internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of running, and the Director's determination on 
this issue will be withdrawn. The Petitioner providedevidence of her first-place finishes in the 2012 
I I Marathon and the 2013 Marathon and her second-place finishes in the 2018 
I I Marathon and 2014 I I Marathon, among other events. She provided evidence of race 
results confirming her top placement among large fields of competitors at these events, as well as 
media coverage of the events and her victories. In light of the above, the Petitioner has established 
that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation ofthe [noncitizen 'sJ membership in associations in the fieldfor 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). 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCTS) determines if the association for which the person 
claims membership requires that members have outstanding achievements in the field as judged by 
recognized experts in that field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l ). The 
petitioner must show that membership in the association requires outstanding achievements in the field 
for which classification is sought, as judged by recognized national or international experts. Id. 
Here, the Petitioner claims that she meets this criterion because she represented her country in 
numerous competitions as a member of the I !national team. 
We acknowledge that membership on a national team may, depending on the evidence presented in 
an individual case, be sufficient to satisfy this criterion. While an athletic team is not, strictly speaking, 
an "association," it is nonetheless equally true that an athlete can earn a place on a major national or 
an Olympic team only through rigorous competition which separates the very best from the great 
majority of participants in a given sport. Therefore, an athlete's membership on an Olympic team or 
a major national team may serve to meet this criterion as such teams are limited in the number of 
members and have a rigorous selection process. See id. (stating that election to a national all-star or 
Olympic team might serve as comparable evidence for evidence of membership in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii)). It is the Petitioner's burden, however, to demonstrate that she meets every element 
of a given criterion. We will not assume that every "national team" is sufficiently exclusive and 
requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their fields or disciplines. Upon review of the evidence submitted, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has not established her eligibility under this criterion. 
In denying the petition, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's assertion that she represented 
in numerous competitions, but determined that she had not presented evidence regarding her 
selection to the national team, the requirements for her selection, or the qualifications of those who 
selected her to compete. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation in the form of 
news articles and abstracts in support of her assertion that she satisfies this criterion. 
3 
The Petitioner submits documentation from www.worldathletics.org regarding the "Qualification 
System and Entry Standards" for the "World Athletic Championships Budapest 23" dated August 
2022. While this document outlines the minimum entry requirements for participation in this 
competition, it does not mention the Petitioner, nor does it pertain to the Petitioner's claimed 
membership on the I I national team. 
The Petitioner also submitted two news articles in support of her eligibility under this criterion. The 
first, an article entitled "What is a Good Marathon Time?" published at www.asics.com, generally 
discusses the world records and elite times for men and women participating in marathons but does 
not pertain to the membership requirements of the I I national team. The second article, 
entitled _________ for IAAF World Athletics Championships Doha 2019" from 
www.worldathletics.org, identifies its selections for that particular team. Although it notes that several 
selectees are "world leaders" and "world record holders," the Petitioner is not identified as a member 
of this 2019 team, nor does it outline the criteria for selection to the I I national team. 
Finally, the Petitioner submits a 2012 abstract entitled _______ distance runners: what 
makes them so good?" published at pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. The abstract, however, discusses the 
links between genotype characteristics and elite running performance, and does not address the 
Petitioner's claimed membership on the I !national team or the manner in which such team 
members are selected. 
Here, the Petitioner has not documented her membership on theI I national team. Although 
the record contains the Petitioner's race results for various competitions which denote her country as
I I there is no documentation establishing that she was in fact a member of the country's national 
team at the time she participated in those events. The Petitioner must support her assertions with 
relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
Moreover, the Petitioner does not provide supporting evidence showing that membership on this team 
required outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. Although many athletes who are members of a national team may 
qualify under this criterion, they must submit sufficient evidence of the selection process to establish 
that outstanding achievements are required ( e.g., meeting a certain cutoff time or score, or advancing 
through qualification rounds). While the submissions on appeal provide general information regarding 
elite running times and information regarding the eligibility requirements for entry into various events, 
this documentation provides no insight on the selection process for the I I national team. 
Although an athlete's membership on a major national team may serve to meet this criterion as such 
teams are limited in the number of members and have a rigorous selection process, it is the Petitioner's 
burden to demonstrate that she meets every element of a given criterion, including that she is a member 
of a team that requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. 
Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her membership in associations requiring outstanding 
achievements in the field for which classification is sought, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. Therefore, this criterion has not been met. 
4 
Evidence of the [noncitizen '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). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner must establish that not 
only has she made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). For example, a petitioner may show that 
the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or 
influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance. 
The Petitioner asserted that she satisfied this criterion based on her rankings and performance statistics 
in long-distance races. She specifically highlights that she broke course records at the I I I I Marathon in China in 2012 and the Marathon in 2013 in addition to 
winning more than 10 prestigious international competitions in long-distance running. The Petitioner 
also submitted a letter froml Ia professional race director, who attests to the Petitioner's 
skills and abilities. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her 
contributions were original or of major significance to the field. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains 
that her multiple course records at major marathons constitute original contributions of major 
significance. 
Upon review, we concur with the Director's determination. Here, the Petitioner has not explained 
how winning or placing highly in a given race amounts to an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. Neither the Petitioner nor Mr. explain why, for instance, breaking 
course records at the _______ Marathon in China in 2012 and the _____ 
Marathon in 2013 are original athletic contributions of major significance in the field. Winning 
nationally or internationally significant races satisfies a separate criterion relating to prizes and awards. 
The existence of two separate criteria ( one for prizes, one for contributions) demonstrates that neither 
implies the other. An athlete may, of course, win a prize or award as a result of an athletic contribution 
of major significance, but the burden is on the Petitioner to show that is the case. Here, the submitted 
evidence fails to demonstrate how the Petitioner's competitive results equate to "original" athletic 
contributions or how her specific achievements were majorly significant in the field of long-distance 
runnmg. 
The letter from Mr. recounted the Petitioner's achievements in the field oflong-distance running 
and stated that "an athlete of [the Petitioner's] caliber is quite rare." Although Mr. generally 
praises the Petitioner's running abilities, he does not explain how her achievements in the field are 
original or how their impact has reached a level of major significance in the field. His letter, therefore, 
does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's work constitutes contributions of "major significance" in 
the field. USCIS may, in its discretion, use advisory opinions and statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Id. The submission of reference letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS 
may, as we have in this case, evaluate the contents ofletters as to whether they support the individual's 
eligibility. See id. at 795-96. 
5 
The record does not contain evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's racing wins and course 
records have impacted the field of running in a way that could be characterized as having major 
significance. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown that she has made original 
contributions of major significance to the field. 
B. Reserved Issue 
Although the Petitioner also claims to satisfy one additional criterion related to published materials, 
we need not reach that issue. We reserve it as she cannot meet the initial evidentiary requirement of 
three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See INSv. 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); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
TIT. CONCLUSION 
Because 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 at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we need not provide the 
type of final merits determination described in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, determining that it does not support a conclusion 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 
submitted documentation of his achievements but has not demonstrated that these achievements have 
translated into a level of recognition that constitutes sustained national or international acclaim or 
demonstrates 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. Furthermore, the record does not 
otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage of individuals who have risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6