dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-M-G-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 28, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a soccer coach, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in athletics. 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l) (A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 
concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, he 
did not show sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. In addition, the Director found that the Petitioner 
did not establish that his entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits further documentation and a brief, arguing that he has sustained the 
required acclaim, has risen to the very top of his field, and will substantially benefit the United States. 
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 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 m the area of
extraordinary ability, and
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the
United States.
Matter of W-M-G-
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 fmth 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). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not
readily apply to the individual's occupation.
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). 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." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS
The Petitioner is a soccer coach with the� Soccer Club, Inc. � I Florida. Because 
he 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 met the following three criteria: published material under 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The record reflects that the Petitioner served as a judge to select soccer players
for a tournament. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging
criterion. However, for the reasons discussed later in this decision, we do not concur with the
Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfied the published material and leading or critical role
criteria.
2 
Matter of W-M-G-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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 necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, we disagree. Specifically, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate published material about him in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, including the author of the material and any necessary translation. 1 
The record reflects that the Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on 11 articles. 
However, the Petitioner presented partial English language translations. Any document in a foreign 
language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The 
translator must ce1tify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the 
translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. Because the Petitioner 
did not submit properly certified English language translations of the documents, we cannot 
meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's 
claims. 
Moreover, it appears that the Petitioner only provided translations of the portions of the aiticles that 
mentioned or referenced his name. Again, without full translations, the Petitioner did not establish 
that the aiticles are about him consistent with this regulatory criterion. In fact, a review of the partial 
translations appear to show articles about soccer matches and tournaments with the Petitioner 
mentioned as a participant; however, the articles are not about him. Articles that are not about a 
petitioner do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. See. e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR­
RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about 
the actor). 2 
Furthermore, none of the translations include the author of the material. The inclusion of the author 
is not optional but a regulatory requirement. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). As the Petitioner's 
evidence does not contain the authors of the material, he did not demonstrate that he meets the 
eligibility requirements for this criterion. 
Finally, the record reflects that three articles were published in El Impulso, one article was published 
in La Prensa, and two articles were posted on elinformandor.com. Further, the Petitioner did not 
identify the publications for the remaining five articles. Regardless, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that any of the articles were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Although the Petitioner submitted background and historical information for El Impulso, La Prensa, 
and El Informandor, he did not provide independent, objective evidence establishing their status as 
1 See users Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https :/ /www.uscis.gov/po licymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 See also users Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (finding that the published material should be about 
the petitioner relating to his or her work in the field, not just about his or her employer or another organization with whom 
he or she is associated). 
3 
Matter of W-M-G-
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 3 Moreover, USCIS need not rely on 
the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA 
July 6, 2007) ajf'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding that self-serving assertions on the 
cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliant evidence of major media). 
Because the Petitioner did not establish that his evidence fulfills the eligibility requirements, we 
withdraw the findings of the Director for this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
While the Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion based on his role as a judge with the 
.__ _____________ ___, we disagree. As it relates to a leading role, the evidence must 
establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to 
establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 4 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate 
that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the 
organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the 
performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 5 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from I !director of D who indicated that the 
Petitioner "has been [a] member of this organization as Judge of the I I 
U-15 year2012-2013, who representedl I at the..___ _________ ___,[in] 
Bolivia [in] in 2013." Althoughl I confirmed the Petitioner's role as a judge, he did not 
provide detailed information reflecting that the Petitioner contributed to the outcome of ffi 
activities.6 For instance,I I did not indicate the results of U-15's participation at the 
I lin Bolivia to show the Petitioner's impact of his role. Instead, 
I lmade general statements, such as "[the Petitioner] in the exercise of this position has 
contributed significantly in the development and performance of this organization and its activities," 
without specifically identifying how the Petitioner has contributed to the successes ofLJ 
In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate tha.0 enjoys a distinguished reputation consistent 
with this regulatory criterion. 7 Although I !indicated that "the I I 0� 
Committee (COV) and FIFA [Federation Internationale de Football Association] recog!_lizedl__J 
becoming the national organizatiol resporible for all football activities inl j recognition 
alone does not necessarily establish distinguished reputation. The Petitioner, for example, did 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (instructing that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publication or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics and show the intended audience of the publication). 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
5Jd. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal 
knowledge of the significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful in making this 
determination as long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for 
the organization or establishment was leading or critical). 
7 Id. at 10-11 ( defining Merriam-Webster's Dictionary definition of "distinguished" as marked by eminence, distinction, 
or excellence). 
4 
Matter of W-M-G-
not show the overall field's view of Dor how its reputation compares to other national soccer 
organizations. 
Furthermore, the Director determined that although the Petitioner performed as a coach forl I 
I and I I he did not 
.... d
--:-
e_m_o_n_s-tr-a-te-t
--:-
h-a--;tl
===
;-1a- n
--:-
dFI ====!-=,I enjoy distinguished reputations. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that "[t]o rebut the District Director's findings the [Petitioner] submitted the organization's [sic] 
eminence, distinction or excellence." However, the Petitioner does not identify what evidence he 
presented, nor does the record contain evidence showing the distinguished reputations ofl I and 
I I In addition, while the record includes letters confirming the Petitioner's employment and 
attesting to his "unique abilities" and "talents," they do not provide specific information establishing 
that he performed in a leading or critical role. 
Finally, the Director found that the Petitioner performed in a leading and critical role for D 
However, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish th;i0enjoys a distinguished 
reputation. The record contains a letter from I I president of□--who indicated that the
Petitioner coached the under-8 and under-12 teams, winning two tournament championships. While 
I I indicated that the Petitioner coached two teams, she did not demonstrate how his role was 
leading to c=lverall or was essential in contributing to the successes ofLJas a whole. In addition, 
the record includes a screenshot froml I mission statement but does not show that it enjoys a 
distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner claims to quote an unidentified source relating to 
the background orl I The Petitioner, however, did not establish the claimed fact with unsupported 
testimonial evidence alone, nor did he demonstrate that□Possesses a distinguished reputation. 
As the Petitioner did not establish that his evidence fulfills the eligibility requirements, we withdraw 
the findings of the Director for this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form 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 Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 
F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our authority
over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable
to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No.
98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000).
5 
Matter of W-M-G-
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. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 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 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 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 8 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, the petitioner bears 
the burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799,806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ~f W-M-G-, ID# 3322537 (AAO May 28, 2019) 
8 As the Petitioner has not demonstrated his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act, we need not 
consider whether his entrance will substantially benefit prospectively the United States under section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii). 
6