dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF U-W-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 2, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SER VICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a national weightlifting organization in the United States, seeks to classify the 
Beneficiary as an individual of extraordinary ability in athletics. See 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Beneficiary had not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, either a 
one-time achievement or at least three of ten alternate criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief arguing that the Beneficiary has a qualifying one-time 
achievement and satisfies at least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of U-W-, Inc. 
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 that a beneficiary has a one-time achievement (that 
is a major, internationally recognized award). Alternatively, a petitioner must provide documentation 
for an individual that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain 
media). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable material if 
it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to a 
beneficiary's occupation. 
Where a beneficiary 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates that as senior manager of events for , the 
Beneficiary is "responsible for organizing and managing national and international weightlifting 
competitions" in the United States. In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Beneficiary 
did not meet any of the initial evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary 
has a one-time achievement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and that he also satisfies four of the alternate 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record 
and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Beneficiary has received a one-time 
achievement or fulfills the requirements of at least three criteria. 
A One-Time Achievement 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have risen 
to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one-time 
achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying as 
major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted 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-time achievement ; other examples which enjoy major, 
international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and an Olympic Medal. 
The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement must be 
2 
.
Matter of U-W-, Inc. 
a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel Laureates, 
the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the 
nationality of the awardees, reflects a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large cash 
prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time 
achievement without meeting all of those elements, 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 argues on appeal that the Beneficiary "was chosen to manage an sport contest 
for the 2016 '' and that his selection should be assessed as a one-time achievement. 
The record includes a June 2012 letter from Sports Director of the 
, indicating that the Beneficiary was 
"selected as an Athletic Competition Leader for Weight Lifting." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204. 5(h)(3), however, requires the one-time achievement to be "a major, international[ly] recognized 
award." The Beneficiary's selection to serve as sports manager for the weightlifting competition at 
the 2016 constitutes a job assignment rather than a major, internationally recognized award. 1 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary meets the requirements of a one­
time achievement. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien'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). 
The Petitioner alternately maintains that the Beneficiary's "selection to manage the competition for 
the sport of weightlifting at the 2016 " is a lesser internationally recognized 
award under this criterion. The language of this criterion requires receipt of "nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." The Petitioner 
has not shown that the Beneficiary's selection to plan and execute a sports event represents his receipt 
of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 2 The Petitioner 
has not established therefore that the Beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
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). 
As documentation for this criterion, the Petitioner submitted articles about the Beneficia ry available 
at http ://www . ____ Weightlifting: " 
~------------------~ 
1 Furthermore, the evidence is not sufficient to show that his selection had a significant level of international recognition 
similar to the award examples identified above. 
2 The issue here is not the internationa l recognition of { or its sporting events, but rather whether the 
Beneficiary received a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in his field. In this instance, 
the evidence does not indicate that the Beneficiary received a prize or an award for excellence, or that selection as Athletic 
Competition Leader for Weight Lifting gamers national or internat ional recognit ion. 
3 
.
Matter of U-W-, Inc. 
, ( 2017)and'' [theBeneficiary]" ;2017). 
In addition, the record includes additional articles about him available at Barbend.com, 
Connectsports.com, and Insidethegames.biz. The Petitioner, however, has not presented comparative 
statistics or other evidence demonstrating that the readership or number of online views for the 
aforementioned sports websites elevates them to major media relative to other publications. 
Furthermore, the record does not show that any of the remaining articles submitted for this criterion 
were about the Beneficiary and in major media, and also included the date and author of the material as 
required. Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Beneficiary satisfies 
this regulatory 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 allied field of specification for which classification 
is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that "[a]lthough [the Beneficiary] was not a judge at the 2016 
in the weightlifting competition, his work to make weightlifting judging possible through 
managing the competition in accordance with ~tandards is related to judging 'the work of 
others,' recognized in the regulations as a high level of responsibility." The assertion that the 
Beneficiary had a "high level of responsibility" as Athletic Competition Leader for Weight Lifting 
and the tasks he performed in that role are more relevant to the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204. 5(h)(3)(viii), a separate and distinct criterion discussed below that he has satisfied. Consistent with 
the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria, we will generally not 
consider evidence relating to the leading or critical role criterion to satisfy this one. 
Regardless, the two letters that the Petitioner points to as evidence for this criterion do not demonstrate 
that he has participated as the judge of the work of others. The record includes a June 2012 letter from 
stating that the Beneficiary's role as Athletic Competition Leader for Weight Lifting 
at the ______ shall consist of three principal activities": 
• Submission and validation of necessary technical information for planning competition 
in the respective sport during the Games; 
• Participation in meetings which shall take place at the main office of the 2016 
Committee; 
• Observation of competition within our nation's territory and possibly outside Brazil. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided an October 2016 letter from 1 , Director General of 
the indicating that the Beneficiary "has been Sport Manager 
for Weightlifting and Paralympic Powerlifting of the 
since 2012" and was responsible for "execution of the largest and most important 
sporting event in the world, the -~- --~- " Neither of the 
aforementioned letters contain sufficient information to demonstrate that the Petitioner participated , 
either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others. The phrase "a judge " implies a 
formal designation in a judging capacity , either on a panel or individually as specified in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) . Without sufficient information and evidence demonstrating that the 
Petitioner ' s activities as Athletic Competition Leader for Weight Lifting constituted his participation , 
4 
.
Matter of U-W-, Inc. 
either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the field, the Petitioner has not 
established that the Beneficiary meets 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). 
The Petitioner's documentation shows that the Beneficiary has performed in a critical role as a senior 
manager of events for and that this organization has a distinguished reputation. Accordingly, 
the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary satisfies this regulatory criterion. 
C. Comparable Evidence 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: "For the evidence described under the criteria above that is not a 
precise match, it should nonetheless be evaluated as 'comparable."' The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not readily apply to a 
beneficiary's occupation. A petitioner should explain why it has not submitted evidence that would 
satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the evidence it 
has included is "comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 3 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the above criteria do not readily apply to the Beneficiary's 
occupation. The Petitioner has not asserted or demonstrated that the Beneficiary cannot offer evidence 
that meets at least three of the ten criteria. As discussed, the Petitioner has claimed the Beneficiary 
meets more than three criteria, including the leading or critical role criterion we determined he satisfied. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that sports event managers cannot present evidence relating to 
the other regulatory criteria such as original contributions of major significance and commanding a 
high salary. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (ix). As such, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary is eligible to meet the initial evidence requirements through the submission of 
comparable evidence. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the submitted 
documentation is truly comparable to the evidence required under the listed criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), and (iv), as claimed. 
D. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Beneficiary received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USC IS 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 1-140 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 J ustice, 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), ajfd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our authority 
over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005. 1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitt ed with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to th e Adjudicator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, A FM Update A DJJ -14 12 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.usc is.gov/policymanual/HT ML/PolicyManual.html. 
5 
Matter of U-W-, Inc. 
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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Beneficiary is not eligible 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. 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 Beneficiary has established the acclaim and recognition required for the 
classification sought. 
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, it is the petitioner's 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 of U-W-, Inc., ID# 2988739 (AAO May 2, 2019)