dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF F-J-G-R-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 27. 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an athlete and instructor. seeks 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in athletics. 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 Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140. Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied three of the regulatory eligibility 
requirements. The Director determined that the Petitioner had demonstrated he had met the lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes and judging eligibility criteria. However. the Director 
also found that the Petitioner had not shown he satisfied the published material and critical role 
criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he meets at least three of the ten criteria directly or with 
comparable evidence. With his appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. 
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 
Matter of F-J-G-R-
(iii) the alien'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 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). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation 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). 
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. USCJS. 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(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.O. 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." Malter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As the Petitioner has not established that he has received a major. internationally recognized award. 
he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the 
petition, the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied only two of the four regulatory criteria upon 
which his claim was based. On appeal, the Petitioner contests the two criteria: published material at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We have reviewed all of 
the evidence in the record and we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the lesser 
national awards and the judging criteria. However, as discussed below. the record does not support a 
finding that the Petitioner satisfied the published material or critical role criteria. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade puhlications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldfhr wh;ch classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the Iitle. date. and author qfthe material. and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides 31 articles and the transcript of a television interview to 
demonstrate his eligibility for this criterion. Most of the articles are in Spanish and are accompanied 
by only summary translations. Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full 
2 
.
Matter of F-.1-G-R-
English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b )(3). The translator must certify that the English 
language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from 
the foreign language into English. !d. Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified 
English language translation of the articles, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the 
translated material is accurate and supportive. 
Of the articles in English or accompanied by full translations, only two mention the Petitioner. One 
article lists him amongst 23 individuals who won awards in the 1999 
The other article, also from 1999, identifies the Petitioner as a coach at one of 11 taekwondo schools 
m Venezuela. These articles are not about the Petitioner. but rather focus on events or 
organizations with which he is associated. 
The record lacks the original source material and relevant publication information relating to the 
Petitioner's interview on Review of the translated transcription of the interview 
demonstrates it focused taekwondo training in general and not the Petitioner. As such, the evidence 
in the record does not establish that the Petitioner meets the plain language of the criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role .fiH organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims to have satisfied this criterion through his work as the Director of 
Promotions for the as the president of the 
and as the founder and president of the 
Each organization will be considered in turn. 
A. 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish his position as the director of promotions 
qualified as a leading or critical role or that was an organization with a distinguished 
reputation. The Petitioner presents new evidence on appeal, relying primarily on letters from the 
board of directors and the executive president of 
According to their letter, the board of directors at created a director of promotions position 
to address a lack of uniform standards for determining advancements throughout the organization. 
The letter lists the responsibilities of the position, which include heading assessment activities, 
determining what procedures and techniques should be evaluated, developing an evaluation plan. 
and updating training methods. The Petitioner held the director of promotions role for five years.' 
The board of directors at described the Petitioner as possessing ''immense talent" and "a 
great leader," and emphasized the importance of his role to the organization. 
1 The letter from the board of directors of does not identify when the Petitioner held position of director of 
promotions. The Petitioner indicates this was from 20 I 0 to 2014. 
3 
.
Matter of F-.1-G-R-
the executive president of describes the Petitioner as '·a visionary 
and a pioneer in in Venezuela" and claims that he "helped the organization as a whole 
reach a new level by ensuring that each person deserves the appropriate level of promotion:· 
further states that the Petitioner's leadership role was central to the organization· s 
mission, but does not provide specific examples of his leadership. 
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. The 
record does not demonstrate how the director of promotions fit into the hierarchy of to 
show that it was a leading role. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there 
is a greater need for a petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of' Y-B-. 21 l&N Dec. 
1136 (BIA 1998). Here, the letters describe the Petitioner's role and affect in general terms without 
supporting evidence to establish the impact he had on the organization or its activities. As such. the 
record does not establish that the Petitioner's role as the director of promotions was a leading or 
critical role. 
The record, additionally, does not establish that possesses a distinguished reputation. The 
Petitioner lists several characteristics to demonstrate satisfies the reputation requirement. 
specifically that: it represents Venezuela in international competitions; magazines and newspapers 
write articles about the organization; distinguished visitors come to participate in activities and 
events; other organizations recognize it; and it has been designated as an independent affiliate of the 
larger 
However, the record contains little evidence to support the Petitioner's contentions. He does not 
demonstrate that the government of Venezuela endorses or supports activities or that the 
organization represents the country in international events. Of the properly translated and English-
language articles in the record, most only reference in passing. One article about 
from a 2010 does not indicate that the organization has a distinguished 
reputation. Taken as a whole, the articles in the record are insut1icient to demonstrate that 
possesses a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner cites two special visitors who participated in the organization's events. but does not 
explain how two visits occurring tive years apart bestow a distinguished reputation on the 
organization. The participation plaque provided by the Petitioner as evidence that other 
organizations recognize does not identify the recipient as distinguished in nature. Finally. 
the record contains lacks sufficient evidence to establish that the parent organization possesses a 
distinguished reputation or that the independent affiliate status it granted to conveys any 
esteem or goodwill. Considered in the aggregate, the record fails to establish that has a 
distinguished reputation. 
4 
.
Matter of F-.1-G-R-
B. The 
Beyond his work with the national organization, the Petitioner also claims that he held a 
leading role as the president of the of the organization. the executive 
president of indicates that the Petitioner's duties as president included leading all of the 
atliliated schools in the state, organizing events, liaising with government officials, and representing the 
organization. In their letter, the board of directors further explained that the Petitioner oversaw three 
schools and their students in the 
The record lacks sutlicient evidence to corroborate the scope and nature of the Petitioner's role as 
president of the He relies solely on the letters from the executive president and the 
board of directors to establish his role, which describe his duties only in vague tern1s. Furthennore, the 
Petitioner has not established the organizational structure and hierarchy of the or the 
relationship between and its affiliated schools. Therefore, despite his title as president. the 
Petitioner has not established that he held a leading role. 
The record also 
lacks sufficient evidence demonstrating that the held a 
distinguished reputation. The Petitioner points to a 1998 newspaper article indicating that the most 
prominent team in a competition was the team from The Petitioner does not explain how a one­
time success at a tournament occurring 11 years prior to his tenure as president of the 
shows that the organization had a distinguished reputation. Rather, the Petitioner invites us to accept 
the attestations of the board of directors, who state that the is one of the 
premier state chapters in the national organization, in part because it performs well in competitions. 
The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the foreign 
national's eligibility. USCIS may give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated. in accord 
with other information or is in any way questionable. Maller qj' Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). The record, lacking corroborating evidence, does not establish that the 
possesses a distinguished reputation. 
C. The 
The Petitioner also claims that he played a leading and critical role as founder and president of the 
a martial arts academy he began in 2009. As support, he provides a letter from 
the vice president of the school, who describes the Petitioner's past responsibilities. 
which included handling the legal formation of the corporation operating the schooL selecting a 
location, hiring staff, supervising instructors, and training students. letter describes the 
Petitioner's involvement with the school in the past tense, but the record does not identify when the 
Petitioner stopped performing these duties. 
As the record lacks direct evidence of the Petitioner's role in the formation and management of the 
he relies primarily on the letters from and the 
5 
.
Matter of F-J-G-R-
executive president who also serves as vice president of the school. The letter from 
only briefly touches on the Petitioner's role at the school, mentioning that he founded it and 
crediting his leadership for the school's success. In his letter, provides some additional 
detail regarding the Petitioner's responsibilities, describing him ··as a leader of the school" who 
"ensures that the instructors also achieve excellence in teaching" and "makes important decisions 
regarding every aspect of the school." However, beyond cursory descriptions of the Petitioner's 
importance to the school, letter does not contain sutlicient detail to detem1ine if he 
held a leading or critical role at the school. If testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or 
credibility, there is a greater need for a petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter ol Y-B-, 
21 I&N Dec. at 1139. The record lacks corroborating evidence of the Petitioner's role and 
responsibilities at the and thus, considered as a whole, does not suffice to 
establish that he held a leading or critical role. 
To establish the school's distinguished reputation, attests that the 
is widely renowned as of the best taekwondo schools in Venezuela and that the school has won 
'"countless awards, which is the main indicator of success in our field.'' The record lacks evidence. 
beyond individual attestations by those affiliated with the schooL of its renown. As evidence of the 
competitive success, the Petitioner provides photographs of a number of recent 
tournament trophies. The trophies in the photographs do not identify the recipients and the Petitioner 
did not submit corroborating evidence demonstrating the received the awards. 
Additionally, USCIS records indicate that the Petitioner resided in the United States during the period 
these tournaments occurred and he has not demonstrated that he has maintained any active role with the 
school during the relevant time period. Taken as a whole, the record contains insufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that the possesses a distinguished reputation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 119-20? 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 level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter (~lF-.1-G-R-, ID# 547045 (AAO Sept. 27, 2017) 
2 
In addition, as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)( I )(A)(i) of the Act, we 
need not determine whether he is coming to ''continue work in the area of extraordinary ability'' under section 
203(b )(I )(A)(ii).