dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-S-F-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 9, 2018 
MOTlON ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an ultramarathon runner, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in athletics. This first preference classification makes immigrant visa available to those .who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in tl)eir field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant 
Petitioner Alien Worker, finding he did not satisfy the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to 
individuals of extraordinary ability, either a major, internationally recognized award or at least three 
of ten possible forms of documentation. We dismissed his subsequent appeal on the same basis. 1 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider and a motion to reopen. Upon review, we 
will deny the motions. 
I. LAW 
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 categodes 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 submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we 
will then determine whether the totality of 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. 2 
1 See Maller ofR-S-F-, ID# 925440 (AAO Feb. 28, 2018). 
2 See Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20·10) (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); 
.~ee 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, 
.
Maller of R-S-F-
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a motion to reopen 
is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to reconsider are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
IL BACKGROUND 
In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the Petitioner satisfied only one of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, awards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). In his motion to reconsider, he argues 
that he established eligibility for published material under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and original 
contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). In his motion to reopen, the Petitioner presents 
additional documentation and contends that he meets the one-time achievement under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), memberships under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), leading or critical roles under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 3 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
Under the published material criterion, our previous decision evaluated, in part, the screenshot from 
runnersworld.com entitled, Specifically, we 
determined that the screenshot was about how a Florida race began with I 00 runners skydiving out 
of ~ plane· rather than published material about the Petitioner. Moreover, we found that the 
Petitioner did not establish that runnersworld.com is a professional or major trade publication or 
other major medium. On motion, the Petitioner argues that the plain language of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) "requires simply 'material' about him 'relating' to his work in the field," 
and "[t]he language does not require a certain amount of material." Although the Petitioner is 
mentioned in the screenshot, we do not agree that being referenced or having one's name listed 
among competitors constitutes "published material about the alien" consistent with the regulatory 
criterion. Furthermore, as referenced in our decision, articles that are not about a petitioner do not 
meet 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). 
Here, the screenshot is about the rather than about the Petitioner. In addition, the 
Petitioner asserts that ,.....-:-:-:=== is no question a 'major' trade publication in the field of 
untrarunning" and cites to and The Petitioner, however, did not 
submit copies of the websites to support her assertions. Furthermore, the Petitioner presented 
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 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
3 The Petitioner did not include the required statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has 
been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.S(a)( 1 )(iii)(C). 
2 
.
' 
\ 
Matter of R-S-F-
evidence that the article appeared on the website, runnersworld.com, rather than the publication, 
Therefore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that ·runnersworld.com is a 
professional or major trade publication or other major medium. For these reasons, the Petitioner did 
not establish error in our decision regarding the published material criterion. 
In addition, in support of his claim that he meets the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner contends that we should reconsider the significance of his victory in 
the 24-hour race at the 2014 because he set a record that has not been 
broken by any Filipino in the world. First, we note that we considered the Petitioner's win at the 
Florida race under the awards criterion at the. regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Second, the 
Petitioner did not provide evidence to support his assertion that no other has broken his race 
record.4 Third, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how this claimed record qualifies as a 
contribution of major significance in the overall field under the regulation .at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-135 (upholding a finding that a ballroom 
dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown that we erred in our decision for this criterion. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
On motion, the Petitioner argues for the first time that his first place finish at the above-mentioned 
2014 qualifies as a one-time achievement. As supporting evidence, the 
Petitioner offers previously submitted documentation regarding the Florida race. A motion to 
reopen, however, must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does 
not constitute "new facts." Notwithstanding, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires· the 
one-time achievement to be "a major, international[ly] recognized award." 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. IO 1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 1990 
U.S.C.C.AN. 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 a 
mqjor, 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 
pnze. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time 
4 As indicated in our original decision, the Petitioner offered a screenshot reflecting that in 2014 he was ranked first 
among ultramarathon runners, but there was only one other Filipino runner. In addition, the Petitioner has not 
identified the evidence that shows "the record set by [him] at this major race has not been broken by an [sic] 
anywhere in the world." 
3 
.
Maller of R-S-F-
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 . Here, the record does not show that the is reported in the 
top media internationally, reflects a familiar name to the public at large, includes a large cash prize, 
or is similar to the prestige of the Olympics. As such, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his 
finish at the Florida race qualifies as a major , internationally recognized award . 
As it relates to the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), we determined, in part, that the 
Petitioner did not show that he is a member of the 
and that membership requires outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts. On motion, the Petitioner offers an updated letter from 
, founder of , who stated that the Petitioner's "unofficial ranking combined with the win 
at Icarus and his known position in the Asian ultrarunning community led [them] to offer [the 
Petitioner] the honorary position with " letter, 
however, does not establish that the Petitioner was admitted to "membership" with based on 
attaining outstanding achievements in the field .5 Rather, the Petitioner was offered a consulting 
position similar to an employment role. Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
membership with is limited to those who have outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. In fact, the Petitioner did not provide evidence of any 
membership requirements, nor did claim that in order to become a member of 
individuals are required to have outstanding achievements. Accordingly, the Petitioner does not 
satisfy this criterion. 
Similar to above, the Petitioner claims that he performs in a critical role pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) based on his consulting position with indicated that "[t]he 
position involves direct work with the board of directors to help them understand the Asian 
ultrarunning community and field in order to develop and promote the sport .:' For a critical role, the 
evidence must establish 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. 6 Although 
indicates what the role entails, he did not show what the Petitioner accomplished in his 
consulting position, how he contributed to successes, or whether he was critical to 
activities. Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts that "has a distinguished reputation given the 
director is the world 's foremost ultrarunner and expert ." The issue for this critical is not the 
reputation of the director but whether the organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation . While the Petitioner states that "is registered as a not for profit corporation in 
Florida" on the website and submits a screenshot showing that it "has over 
400 members from 34 different countries," he did not demonstrate that such information is indicative 
· 5 See USCIS 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 ADI 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at I 0. 
4 
I 
Matter of R-S-F-
of a distinguished reputation. The relative size or longevity of an organization or establishment is 
not in and of itself a determining factor. Rather, the organization or establishment must be 
recognized as having a distinguished reptutataion. 7 For these reasons, the Petitioner's documentary 
evidence does not fulfill this criterion. 
Finally, the Petitioner contends that his evidence provided on appeal "shows that [his] achievements 
in the field are extraordinary, even if they do not fit precisely into the above categories." The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of comparable evidence if the listed 
criteria do not readily apply to his occupation. 8 He should explain why he 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 he has included is "comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 9 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown why he cannot offer evidence that meets at least three of the 
criteria. The fact that the Petitioner did not provide documentation that fulfills at least three is not 
evidence that an ultramarathon runner could not do so. As discussed, the Petitioner claimed to meet 
five criteria. Moreover, the Petitioner did not show that ultramarathon runners cannot present 
evidence relating to the other criteria, such as judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and high salary at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Furthermore, the Petitioner did not identify which evidence should be 
considered, or how the documentation is "truly comparable." 10 As such, the Petitioner did not 
establish that he meets at least three criteria through the submission of comparable evidence. 
We further note that 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 personal 
ultramarathon accomplishments 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). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was incorrect, nor does his evidence on 
motion demonstrate his eligibility for the benefit sought. 
1 Id. 
8 See USCIS Policy· Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
9 Id. 
10 Id. 
5 
Mauer r?f R-S-F-
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of R-S-F-, ID# 1585256 (AAO Aug. 9, 2018) 
6