dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-D-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 21.2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a sitting volleyball coach, 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 )( 1 )(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 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria. of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits a brief. contending that he received a major a\vard and meets at 
least three criteria. 
Upon de nom review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 111 the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
lvfatter ofA-D-
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 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). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements. we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess \vhether 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. U5iCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if ful1illing 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); Rija! \'. [).)'CIS. 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This t\vo-step analysis is consistent \vith our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality:· as \Veil as the principle that \Ve 
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 \Vhether the fact to be proven is 
probably true.'' Malter ofChcrwathe. 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. At\ALYSIS 
The Petitioner states that he played on until 1992. Sh01ily 
thereafter, the Petitioner indicates that he began taking courses to be a sitting volleyball coach and, 
in 2007, he 
established the The Petitioner indicates 
he \Vishes to continue his work in the United States as a sitting volleyball coach. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner intended to \Vork in the United States as a sitting 
volleyball coach. lie therefore discounted his documentary evidence relating to him as a sitting 
volleyball player and ultimately found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the regulatory criteria. 
We disagree with the Director's analysis on this issue and will instead evaluate all evidence relating 
to the Petitioner's sitting volleyball achievements as both an athlete and a coach. 2 
1 
See the Petitioner" s cover letter initially submitted in support of his petition. The Petitioner also provided a 
regarding his employment as a sitting volleyball coach from 2010 2013. The record 
does not identify any organizations. teams, or individuals he presently coaches. 
2 
We note that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Adjudicator's Field Manual (AF\1) provides: 
2 
.
Maller of A-D-
On appeaL the Petitioner maintains that he won a major. internationally recognized award under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and that he also sati sfi es at least three or the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Although the Petitioner's appellate submis sion does not identify 
which criteria he meets, he previously claim ed the following criteria: awards under 8 C.F. R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), member ship under 8 C.F.R. § 220 4.5(h)(3)(ii). publi shed material under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) , and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(viii). We have reviewed 
all of the evidence in the record of proceedings , and it does not supp011 a tinding that the Petition er 
has a one-time achievement or ful1ills the plain language requirement s of at least three criteria. 3 
A. One- Time Achiev ement 
The Petitioner argue s that his gold medal as a playe r at the 
in the Netherland s in 1990 constitutes a one-time achievement. The Dir ector issued a requ est for 
evidence (RFE). in part informing the Petition er that he did not establish that his gold medal is a 
major , internationall y recognized award at a leve l consistent with the No bel Prize or Ol ympic s but 
that it may be a lesse r internationall y recog nized award for exc ellence under the regul ation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). In response , the Petitioner stated that he did ·'not wish to conte st the 
service's finding that [he] does not meet [the one-time achievement]. '' Accordingly, the Director did 
not address this claim in his decision. On appeal. however, the Petitioner contends that the Director 
·'concluded without any serious discussion that the Gold Medal won in 1990 by the [Petitioner] doe s 
not constitute a one-time achievement as a maj or, internationally reco gnized award." 
The Petitioner claims that '' [i]t makes little sense to require customer s to only gauge the intent or 
Congress in 1990 to include athletes within areas where mone y and media attention for prizes 
excluding the types of achievements of [him] in thi s case." Further , the Petitioner asserts that the 
Nobel Prize and the Olympics are not "goo d examples to use" beca use '"[ d]ecisions made by 
organizations and governments can change the shape and scope of the public's perspective of the 
world, without questions ." 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this categor y to "that small percent age of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor ," the regulation permitting eligibilit y based on a one-
In general, if a beneficiary has clearly achieved recent national or international acc laim 3S an athlete 
and has s ustained that acc laim in the field of coaching/managing at a national level, adjudicators can 
consider the totality of the evidence as establi shing iln overall pattern of sustained 3cclaim and 
tzxtraordinary ability such that we can conclude that coaching is within the bencticiary·s area or 
expertise. 
AFM ch. 22.22(i)(l )(C) (emphasis in original). 
' If the Petitioner had satisfied the evidentiary requirements. then we would have conducted a final merits determination 
as to whether the totality of the record showed sustained national or international acclaim under section 203(b )(I )(A)( i) 
of the Act. The next step would have been to decide whether he intended to continue to work in the United States in his 
area of expertise under section 203(b )(I )(A )(ii). and finally. whether his entrance would have subst3ntially benefited the 
United States under section 203(b)( I )(A)(iii). 
.
Matter of A-D-
time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly , with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major, internation ally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprint ed 
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710. 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. The House Report specifically cited to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a one-tim e achievement; other examples which enjoy major. 
international recognition may include the Pulit zer Prize, the Academy Award. and an Olympic 
Medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major. internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nob el 
Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationall y regardless 
of the nationalit y of the awardees. reflects a familiar name to the public at large. and includes a large 
cash prize. While an internationally recogni zed award could conc eiva bly constitute a one-time 
achievement without meeting all of thos e e lements, it is clear from the example provided by 
Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the field as one of 
the top awards. 
The Petitioner provided evidence establishin g that he received the gold med al as part of the 
In addition. the record contains Iranian new spap er articles covering the 1990 
championship. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3) requires the one-time achievement to be "a 
major, internation al[ly] recognized award." The documentation. however, does not discus s the 
international 
stature or reputation of the event or otherwise indicate that the medals are recognized as 
major, international awards. The Petitioner did not present, for exa mple, evidence that the 
competition or prize is widely reported by international media comp arab le to other major, globally 
recog nized award s s uch as Oscar or Olympic med al winners. Accordingl y, the Petitioner has not 
demon strated that he meets the requirements of a one-time achievement. 
Finall y, the Petition er asse1is that " it is obvious and unfortunate the USCIS does not belie ve disabled 
athletes can meet [the alien of extraordinary l criteria." The Petition er doe s not provide support for 
this contention, nor did the Director make any such statement or conclu sion in his RFE or deci sion. 
We adjudicate each petition on a case-by-ca se basis and evaluate the documentary evidence based on 
an individual's area of expertise, which in this case is sitting volleyball. We do not find that a sitting 
volleyball player or coach could never establish eligibility as an individu al of extraordinary ability: 
rath er the Petition er in this instance did not estab lish that his persona l achievements satisfy the 
statutor y and regul atory requirements. 
B. Evidentiar y Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt o(lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsj'or excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(i). 
As discussed abov e, the Petitioner established that he received a gold medal as a player at the 1990 
in the Netherlands. Therefor e, the Petitioner establi shed 
that he meets this criterion. 
4 
.
Malter ofA-D-
Documentation olthe alien's membership in associations in thefieldfor which classification is 
sought. which require outstanding achievements oltheir members. as judged hy recogni~ed 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The record indicates that the Petitioner was a member as a player for the until 
1992, and that his membership satisfies the requirements of this criterion. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Published material ahout the alien in prolessional or major trade publications or other major 
media. relating to the alien's work in thefieldfhr which classification is sought. S'uch evidence 
shall include the title. date. and author olthe material. and any necessary translation. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner originally submitted translations of articles regarding the 
competing and winning the in 1990. The translations. 
however, do not identify the titles, dates. authors. or publications. Moreover, the Petitioner is only 
mentioned in two of the articles. Specifically. regarding the article. ' 
the translation does not include 
the author, and the Petitioner is listed as one of nine athletes without any discussion about him. 
Likewise, as it relates to an untitled article in an unidentified publication. the Petitioner is included in 
a list of team members. While the articles reference the Petitioner's name. they are not published 
material about him. Articles that do not pertain to a petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. 
See. e.g. Negro-Piumpe 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). Further. the Petitioner 
did not establish that the articles were published in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. 
Similarly, in response to the RFE, the Petitioner presented a partial translation of an article entitled, 
Although the Petitioner's 
cover letter claimed that the newspaper published the article on 1990. the 
translation does not include the date. author. or publication. Further. a partial translation does 
conform to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) that requires any document in a foreign language 
be accompanied by a fit!! English language translation. Moreover. while the article mentions the 
Petitioner as a team member and indicates that he made some spikes in the match, the article is about 
the team winning the sitting volleyball championship. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has perfhrmed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
estahlishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(viii). 
Initially. the Petitioner presented photographs of himself playing on the national team and a 2013 
letter from head coach for the inviting the 
Petitioner for an official examination and evaluation of his coaching skills. In addition. the 
.
Matler of A-D-
Petitioner provided email correspondence in 2014 from former coach for the 
inquiring about movement drills. In response to the RFE. the 
Petitioner submitted a letter from the mayor of district in Iran. who stated that '·today's 
sport[ s] community indebted some parts of its success and progress to your and the pioneers' worthy 
efforts that made great strides in this area, particularly the Sitting Volleyball and has brought huge 
success in sports to everyone .'' Further , the Petitioner offered a letter from 
former head coach of the who indicated that the Petitioner ·'was 
one of our extremely effective players" and '·has specific unique skills in sending the volleyball from 
behind the collar and in spiking with a snappy technique." 
In generaL a leading role is evidenced from the role itself~ and a critical role is one in which a 
petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of the organization or establishment. Although 
the Petitioner was a member of the that won gold at the 
in 1990. he did not show that he performed in a leadership role, such as 
captain , or was credited with being responsible for winning gold or for the overall success of the 
team. The letter from did not provide specific details showing that being an 
"extremely effective player[r was tantamount to a leading or critical role. Moreover, the Petitioner. 
for example, did not demonstrate how his role compared to the other players on the team. 
As it pertains to the other letters and emails, the Petitioner did not indicate how being invited for an 
evaluation to coach shows a leading or critical role for the 
team. The record does not reflect that the Petitioner coached or was ever involved in any capacity 
with the Similarly , the Petitioner did not establish how 
providing movement drills in response to an email request is commensurate with performing in a 
leading or critical role to the Accordingly. the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that he satisfies 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. 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 docs not suppm1 a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 4 
4 
As the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l )(A)(i) of the Act in sitting 
volleyball, we need not determine whether he is coming to ··continue work in the area of extraordinary ability'' under 
section 203(b)( I)(A)(ii). 
Matter ofA-D-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofA-D-, ID# 796259 (AAO Dec. 2 L 2017)