dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
EAC 04 149 52108 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1 1 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
W~LSW- 
3 Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
athletics. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner "is a nationally and internationally recognized athlete." 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on April 20,2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a 
competitive athlete "in the field of professional wrestling/~ambo."' 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
1 
 The term "Sambo" is an acronym for the Russian phrase "Samozashchita Bez Oruzhiya" or in the English language, "Self- 
Defense Without Weapons." 
Page 3 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that she was awarded gold, silver, and bronze medals at various 
national and international Sambo competitions during the 1990's. For example, the petitioner won gold 
medals at the Lithuanian Women's Sambo Championships in 1996, 1997, 1999 and bronze medals at the 
Women's Sambo World Championships in 1995, 1997, and 1998. We find the petitioner's evidence is 
adequate to demonstrate that she meets this criterion. 
Published materials 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. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as stated in the 
regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major 
media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not earn 
acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication or from a publication in a language that most 
of the population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local 
community papers.2 
The petitioner submitted incomplete translations of articles appearing in Klaipeda and Vakaris Express. 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English. The translations accompanying the preceding articles were not full 
English translations as required by the regulation. Without complete translations, it cannot be determined that 
the petitioner was the primary subject of the published material. Further, the petitioner did not submit evidence 
showing that Klaipeda and Vakaris Express had national or international circulation, including the section of the 
newspapers in which the petitioner's articles were featured. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted two articles (dated August and 
September 2004) appearing in the News Gleaner, a weekly newspaper distributed in northeast Philadelphia. 
Aside from the petitioner not being the primary subject of these articles (her name is only briefly mentioned), 
there is no evidence showing that this publication qualifies as major media. Nevertheless, this evidence came 
into existence subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the 
2 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 4 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); see Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Comm. 197 1). Accordingly, 
this evidence will not be considered within this proceeding. 
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of specfication for which classfication is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. For example, serving as a judge for a national 
competition involving professional athletes is of far greater probative value than serving as a judge for a local 
competition involving amateur competitors or children. 
We withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner meets this criterion. The petitioner submitted a "Judge 
of National Level" identification card issued by the Lithuanian Republic Sambo Federation on March 30, 
1998. The plain language of this criterion, however, requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a 
judge of the work of others." While this credential indicates that the petitioner is qualified to serve as a judge, 
there is no evidence showing that she has actually participated as a judge at officially sanctioned competitions 
at the national or international level. There is no evidence identifying the names of the competitions in which 
the petitioner was involved and the dates that those events took place. Nor has the petitioner submitted 
evidence showing the specific competitive divisions she evaluated, the names of the participating athletes, and 
their level of expertise. Without evidence showing that the petitioner's activities involved evaluating 
experienced competitive athletes at the national or international level, we cannot conclude she meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjkance in the field. 
In response to the director's re uest for evidence, the petitioner submitted letters of support from three martial 
arts experts 
- 
f United States Judo, ~nc.,of the Liberty Bell Judo/Sambo 
Academy, and 
 of the American Sambo Federation). These individuals list the petitioner's 
competitive awards and assert that her awards "constitute an athletic contribution of major significance." The 
petitioner's competitive victories, however, have previously been addressed under the awards criterion at 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(i). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct 
from one another. Because separate criteria exist for awards and original contributions of major significance, 
CIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion 
mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria 
would be meaningless. 
In order to establish major significance, the petitioner must show that her athletic contribution has 
demonstrably influenced the greater field at the national or international level. The record, however, includes 
no evidence showing that the petitioner's achievements have had a substantial national impact on competitors 
Page 5 
currently active in the fields of judo, Sambo, professional wrestling, or the martial arts. For example, holding 
a national or world record in one's sport (in certain instances) can constitute a major contribution since the 
record is something to which other athletes aspire. In this case, however, the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate a specific athletic accomplishment that rises to the level of an original contribution of major 
national or international significance. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien S work in thejeld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The letter of support fromstates: 
 "In my view, widely publicized display of [the 
petitioner's] athletic achievements at international competition is comparable to 'display at artistic 
showcases."' 
 The evidence submitted by the petitioner, however, does not adequately support Louis 
Moyerman's claim that the petitioner's matches were "widely publicized." 
 Aside from a single flyer 
promoting "International Fight Night" at the Atlantic Oceana Restaurant in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, New 
York, on April 18, 2002, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's matches in the United States have 
been "widely publicized."3 Nevertheless, the petitioner's field is not in the arts. We find that this particular 
criterion is more appropriate for visual artists (such as sculptors and painters) rather than for competitive 
athletes such as the petitioner. The petitioner's participation and success in competitive events has previously 
been addressed under the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(i). Virtually every athlete "displays" his 
or her work in the sense of competing in front of an audience. Acclaim is generally not established by the 
mere act of competing in public, but rather by regularly attracting a substantial audience. The record includes 
no evidence showing that the petitioner's matches at various competitions received the top billing, drew 
record crowds, or resulted in greater audiences than other similar competitions that did not feature the 
petitioner. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate she meets at 
least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an extent that she 
may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage 
at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her 
significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner 
has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act requires that "the alien seeks to enter 
the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability." Parts 5 and 6 of the Form 1-140 
petition list the petitioner's occupation as "Professional Athlete'' and her job title as "Professional Wrestler." 
The petitioner's intention to continue competing is not in dispute; the record shows that the petitioner has 
There is no evidence showing the number of copies of the International Fight Night flyer circulated and their area of 
distribution, nor is there evidence establishing that the petitioner's match was billed as the main event that night. 
Further, there is no evidence showing that this event attracted a national audience rather than a local audience. 
- Page 6 
participated in various competitions since her entry into the United States in 2001. More relevant is the issue 
of whether employment as a "Professional Athlete" or "Professional Wrestler" will be the petitioner's primary 
occupation and source of income. Because the petitioner seeks an employment-based immigrant 
classification based on her athletic skills, it is reasonable to require evidence that she has been and will be 
supporting herself principally as an athlete (rather than competing in her spare time while supporting herself 
through unrelated employment). In this case, the evidence of record fails to show that the petitioner has been 
and will continue to support herself primarily through her skills as a "Professional Athlete." 
Further, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United 
States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective 
employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary 
detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the United States." In his letter of 
support submitted in response to the director's request for evidenc- states that United States 
Judo, Inc. "will employ the services of [the petitioner] in our training camps on a nationwide level to coach 
United States young athletes." We do not find, however, that coaching falls within the petitioner's area of 
expertise. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has established a successful history of 
coaching athletes who compete regularly at the national level. While a judolwrestling competitor and a coach 
certainly share knowledge of the sport, the two rely on very different sets of basic skills. Thus, competitive 
athletics and coachng are not the same area of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in Federal 
Court. In Lee v. INS., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. 111.2002), the court stated: 
. * 
It is reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's "area of extraordinary ability" as working in the 
same professi n in w 'ch one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any profession in that field. 
For example Wi xtraordinary ability as a baseball player does not imply that he also has 
extraordinary ability in all positions or professions in the baseball industry such as a manager, umpire 
or coach. 
Id. at 91 8. The court noted a 
 area. Therefore, we find that the employment offer for 
a coaching position discussed in 
 letter is not clear evidence that the petitioner seeks to 
continue work in her area of expertise. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.